Mountnessing currently suffers from water/sewage systems that are currently at capacity - any further development in the village will need to see major work on the infrastructure to ensure existing residents are not further impacted.

There is a need for smaller 1/2 bed affordable properties in Mountnessing particularly for elderly residents who wish to downsize and free up larger homes.

The village envelope should be investigated as there has recently been proposals for appropriate infill development that have been rejected due to being located 'outside of the village boundary' when it actual fact, most residents would consider the village to be a lot longer than is currently classified. Mountnessing would begin at Lower Road and end up towards the slip road on to the A12. The Council has recently turned down several sensible planning applications for schemes that would more than like add to the village's street scene.

018 Thoby Priory
This site has been earmarked for development for many years and would be welcomed by many residents. It would be most suited to a development of family homes. Thought will need to be given to affordable housing provision as the site is quite remote from the rest of Mountnessing. Also, the impact on water/sewage services in the area would need to be taken into account.
Appropriate access arrangements will need to be made as the site is off a sharp bend where traffic flows at high speeds. Also, the impact on traffic flows at peak times at the top of Thoby Lane will need to be taken into account.

073 Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School
This development has been vastly improved by the developers over the last year. They have come forward with a scheme of circa 18 family homes and have looked in great detail at the access arrangement off Crosby Close. This has the potential to be a well-designed development that fits in with the context of the local area.

079a/079b/079c Land adjacent to Ingatestone byass
Land in this area would not be suitable for development as it would lead to coalescence between Mountnessing and Ingatestone which should be retained as two separate villages. It is vital that greenery should be retained as a buffer between the A12 and future housing development.

094 Land between 375 and 361 Roman Road / 105 Land between 339 and 361 Roman Road
This would constitute appropriate infill development to Roman Road streetscene. As long as it is sympathetically designed to be in-keeping with other properties in the area, this would be in keeping with the ribbon of development that fronts Roman Road.

107 Mountnessing Roundabout
This site has been earmarked for development for many years. It is very pleasing to see that the developer's have moved away from what was a very oppressive-looking hotel scheme and are concentrating towards housing. Housing design should be in context with the rest of the village. Density is an issue on this site particularly as having 100+ cars accessing/exiting the development at peak time will most likely put a strain on the traffic at the roundabout.

Specifcally within Ingatestone, Fryerning & Mountnessing Ward:
Residential:
018 Thoby Priory - Agree
042 Bell Mead - Agree
057A & B Meadowside - Object - Greenbelt
064 Everglades - Already developed
073 Adjacent to Primary School - Object- Access & Greenbelt
078 Parklands - Object - Greenbelt
078A/B/C - Object - Coalescence/Greenbelt & Effect of A12 noise ( see Planning Decisions relating to Malyons Yard, Roman Road Officer's comments.)
094 No.375 to 361 Roman Road - Agree Greenbelt infill.
095A & B Water Meadows - Object - Green Belt & Village Amenity
098 Ingleton House - Object - OK in principle but where will you move the OAPs too, there is nothing else in the village.
105 No.339 to 361 Roman Road - Agree Greenbelt infill
106 Land adjacent to Ingatestone Garden Centre - Object- as agreed at exit of Brentwood Depositories and temporary use for A12 works to be returned to Greenbelt (and regrassed over). Refer also sound pollution and Malyon's Yard officer's comments.
107 Land at Mountnessing Roundabout. - Agree "Brownfield"
128 Ingatestone Garden Centre (In Mountnessing) - Strongly object - current use is Brownfield but on a Green belt site. Coalescence.Refer also sound pollution and Malyon's Yard officer's comments.
136 Land at Church Crescent - Agree
142 Land NE Thoby Farm, St. Anne's Road - Agrre - Farm buildings
153 Land to South Fryerning Lane -Object Strongly - Greenbelt, Prescence of Public Footpath through plot, Traffic outside Infants School almost opposite is already a nightmare. Two Cottages opposite the plot have benn compulsory purchased by Highways agency for A12 widening, the same would apply to this plot. Refer also sound pollution and Malyon's Yard officer's comments.
225 Nutshell, Stock Lane - Agree
GT005 Poplar's Farm Roman Road Ingatestone? According to the OS map this lies in Margaretting Parish?
GT015 Roman Triangle - Decision already made
GT016 Willow Farm - Agree subject to S106 agreement currently under discussion.

Commercial:
079C - Agree - Old Chelmsford Borough Tip site, Highways Agency depot & Currently leased to company working on A12.
106 - Object-Land adjacent to Ingatestone Garden Centre - Object- as agreed at exit of Brentwood Depositories and temporary use for A12 works to be returned to Greenbelt (and regrassed over).
107 - Land at Mountnessing Roundabout - Agree

Q1: Yes - The Borough logically splits itself into three identified areas, which are of different character. The Borough contains two main infrastructure corridors, with more rural villages to the north and each area provides different development opportunities. The growth figure of 5,500 dwellings for the next 15 years is supported, however it is considered optimistic that 2,500 dwellings will come from the brownfield sites within the urban area.

Q2: Yes - These representations concern the area to the north of Brentwood and it is considered that the issues raised in regard to this area are correct.

Q3: Yes - As stated within Question 1, the growth figure of 5,500 dwellings for the next 15 years is supported, however it is considered optimistic that 2,500 dwellings will come from the brownfield sites within the urban area.

It is evident therefore, that some Green Belt land will have to be released in order to meet the objectively assessed target. As a result, it is recommended that a detailed review of Green Belt boundaries is undertaken. Over the years a number of anomalies have been created by inept drawing of the Green Belt boundaries. There are quite a few examples, for instance, of the Green Belt boundary cutting across the middle of a residential curtilage or wrapping around a single site. This makes no sense at all, and should be corrected.

The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. This should be a clearly defined and reasonably permanent physical feature in the landscape, such as a river, road or railway. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. At the very least, the Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development (except, where acknowledged, the Green Belt 'washes over' the entire village) and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. What is required is not a straight line but a clearly defined and readily defensible boundary.

The Council should follow a hierarchical approach to identifying land to meet residential need, along the following lines:
1. Existing urban areas
2. Existing developed sites in Green Belt
3. Review of Green Belt boundaries to ensure consistency with para 84 and 85 NPPG guidance. Boundaries to follow clear, recognisable, physical features and Green Belt not to include land which is unnecessary to keep open (such as land surrounded by development or which is part of a village).
4. Release of sites on the edge of existing settlements.
5. New settlements (Dutton Garden Suburb).

It is only by following a hierarchical approach, and analysing the impact of the Green Belt at each stage, that the Council can assure itself that the overall impact of the Green Belt will be minimised.

If this analysis justifies the release of the Dutton Garden Suburb then (for the reasons that we indicate in the following question) it is very unlikely that it will make any contribution to current 5 year housing supply or that will be built out in this Local Plan period. It is an allocation that will cover two Local Plan periods and the Council will therefore need to allocate additional land in this Local Plan.
We would like as part of this submission to confirm support for the allocation of land adjacent to 365 Roman Road, Mountnessing (see attached site location plan), which would fall within criteria 3 of the above approach to identifying land.

Q4: The focus of this submission is centred on the A12 Corridor. However, proposals for development at West Horndon are supported, in principle. Questions continue to be raised regarding viability, sustainability and deliverability of these sites and whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they could come forward within the plan period. Representations will be made separately to the Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation; however it is considered that this development fails in four of the five purposes of the Green Belt (Paragraph 80 of the NPPF). Such a suburb would: -
* Encourage the sprawl of large built-up areas (Basildon/Laindon);
* Potentially merge Laindon with East Horndon and West Horndon. Laindon itself is already merged with Basildon
* Further encroaches upon the countryside, creating a continuous stretch of development on the southern side of the A127, running from Nevendon to the A128.
* Failing to encourage the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Questions are also raised over the deliverability of The Dunton Garden Suburb. Basildon Borough Council's Local Plan process has been set back, with the Council not expecting adoption until late 2018. Brentwood Borough Council will not be able to adopt their cross-boundary Development Plan Document until it is agreed and adopted by Basildon Borough Council. The proposals do not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the deliverability of such a scheme and whether there is reasonable prospect of the full delivery of 2,500 dwellings within the 15 year period.

Q5: Yes - As part of the review of the existing Green Belt boundaries, development on sites on the edge of urban areas within the A12 corridor is supported.

Q6: It is questioned as to the extent of brownfield land available within villages. Given currently Green Belt restrictions, most of that land which was previously in brownfield use is likely to have been considered for development (under Paragraph 89 of the NPPF, an exception to inappropriate development is the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt). The brownfield land that is available within the Green Belt is generally found in more unsustainable locations outside of village boundaries. As a result, it is considered that, if in more suitable locations, Greenfield sites on the edge of villages should be considered.

Q7: Yes - No further comment.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - No further comment.

Q12: Yes - No further comment.

Q13: No comment.

REPRESENTATION IN RELATION TO SITE 073 LAND ADJACENT MOUNTNESSING PRIMARY SCHOOL

Introduction

These planning representations have been prepared by Savills UK on behalf of Crest Nicholson Eastern in response to Brentwood Borough Council's Strategic Growth Options Consultation. The representations specifically relate to site 073 (SHLAA site G093), Land Adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School, which is being promoted by Crest Nicholson.

A Design Development Framework has been prepared which identifies the benefits and opportunities for the site which is enclosed as Appendix 1.

We set out below responses to the relevant questions as out in the Strategic Growth Options Consultation document.

Q1: Do you agree with the broad areas, for the purpose of considering approaches to growth?

No.

Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) recognise that in order to address the Borough's significant housing shortfall against Objectively Assessed Need (OAN), Green Belt land release is required to accommodate an additional 3,000 homes during the next 15 years.

We support 'Growth Option B' which promotes growth along the A12 corridor. It is a logical approach to locate development along key arterial routes which already benefit from good transport links. Sites within this corridor need to be well contained by defensive, permanent boundaries and represent an appropriate scale in relation to the settlement they adjoin (supported by localised ONS data on household growth).

Mountnessing is illustrated on figure 6b of the Strategic Growth Options Consultation document which identifies the key settlements along the corridor.

Historically, there has been little new development within Mountnessing which has had a negative impact upon local services, led to a shortfall of housing and Mountnessing Primary School in need of additional pupils on its roll (currently circa 15-30 pupils under capacity).

As the consultation document acknowledges "it is important to consider allowing villages to grow in order to provide for local need". This approach not only seeks to meet local, settlement specific housing needs to address localised affordability issues but it is also necessary to retain the working age population in villages to ensure the viability and vitality of local shops and services.

We acknowledge that these villages (such as Mountnessing) have a rural setting so it is also imperative that suitable sites can be delivered in the short term by a housebuilder with a proven track record of delivering high quality, low density, well-landscaped schemes. Crest Nicholson is the current National Housebuilder of the Year and is locally-based in Brentwood.

We object to the quantum of 4-6,000 homes that has been proposed at the Dunton Garden Suburb (Growth Option C) on the periphery of the Borough, which would not assist in meeting the existing settlement specific housing and socio-economic needs within Brentwood and especially the villages throughout the Borough.

The principle of an urban extension to the settlement of Basildon is not objected to but the quantum of cross-boundary development suggested is not logical, nor justified by any meaningful evidence. The area within the administrative boundary of Brentwood has a number of environmental constraints and the quantum proposed will require a significant upgrade to strategic infrastructure. The time frames for the delivery of such an extensive development will not address the acute local housing shortage within Brentwood that exists now. It is considered that reliance on a single site within a Local Plan is not a sustainable approach to meet housing need, and is one that has been heavily criticised by a number of Inspectors at recent Local Plan Examinations.

It is further considered that the only viable, appropriate and logical area for housing within the Dunton Garden Suburb area is immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of Basildon Town.


Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised within each of these areas?

We agree with the Council's consideration of Green Belt release because there is insufficient brownfield land to meet its objectively assessed need (OAN) (as indicated at paragraph 1.4 of the consultation document). We would reassure the Council that Hundal v South Buckinghamshire (DC 2012) demonstrates that housing need is capable of justifying a change in the Green Belt boundaries. Taking this point into practice, St Albans City and District Council (another Metropolitan Green Belt authority) is preparing its Local Plan to meet full OAN with Green Belt release on the basis that 'exceptional circumstances' do exist because there is insufficient brownfield capacity and no alternative locations beyond the Green Belt. This situation is materially the same as can be observed in Brentwood Borough and we subsequently support the consideration of Green Belt release. Therefore, where there are suitable, sustainably located Green Belt sites adjoining villages such as
Mountnessing, they should be released for residential development.

Whilst the document refers to meeting local housing need through the release of land within the Green Belt at each village, clarification is required on how this is defined. It is essential that the most appropriate site is allocated at each village with the capacity to meet settlement specific needs in the short to medium term (for example site 073). As mentioned previously, this is crucial to maintain the viability/vitality of village shops and services.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular sites?

This document specifically supports the site at Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School (site 073 / SHLAA site G093) which we consider should be released from the Green Belt, in order to meet the existing and future housing and socio-economic requirements of Mountnessing.

A Local Housing Requirements Study prepared by Barton Wilmore concludes that the projected household growth for Mountnessing will generate a need for circa 6 dwellings per year.

The Land adjacent to Mountenessing Primary school is the most sustainable housing option
at Mountnessing to meet this local housing need in the short to medium term.

The appended Design Development Framework demonstrates how the Site could be sensitively developed to provide a sustainable, high quality, low density scheme. A design led approach has resulted in a latest indicative proposal of 15-18 units (reduced further from the initial 25 unit scheme shown in previous representations).

The site has a number of planning benefits:

* It is well screened, with defensible boundaries and development on four sides, ensuring minimal visual impact from the proposals.
* It would not result in any coalescence with Ingatestone and represents a logical extension to the existing settlement boundary.
* It does not serve any of the purposes of the Green Belt in accordance with the NPPF.
* No environmental or ecological constraints have been identified that would prevent its development for residential use.
* Highways have confirmed that access off Crossby Close is acceptable in principle (shared surface upgrades are currently being examined).
* The proposals would lead to the short term delivery of much needed, high quality, generously landscaped, private and affordable homes delivered by the National Housebuilder of the Year.
* The proposals would result in a number of significant socio-economic and community benefits (see page 15 of the Design Development Framework).

The Local Plan evidence base identifies sites that are included within the SHLAA (2011) and "Draft Site Assessment" (2013) as being suitable, available and achievable within the Plan
period.

Within the SHLAA and Site Assessment "Land Adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School, Mountnessing" is identified as the only suitable residential site at Mountnessing. BBC states that the site is capable of delivering circa 35 dwellings within the first five years of the Plan period. BBC further states in the Assessment that the site is:

"Suitable: Comprises ploughed agricultural land with no buildings on site. Site is bound by residential properties and Primary School and therefore impact on the open countryside would be minimal. The site would be suitable for development as it is on the edge of the village with associated amenities;
Available: The site is available for residential development; and
Achievable: Development at this site would be within an attractive area. Due to the location it is recommended that only low density housing would be appropriate. Contamination issues are unknown at present. Connection to infrastructure and services would be relatively low cost as the site is adjacent to existing residential development. Development would be brought forward by a medium size developer."

Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School is considered to be the only suitable site at Mountnessing to accommodate settlement specific housing needs in the short term. SHLAA Sites 094,105 and 136 only have the capacity to accommodate 1-3 dwellings whilst sites 095, 106 and 128 are entirely inappropriate in terms of scale and coalescence with Ingatestone.

Subsequently, Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School should be allocated for residential use in the next iteration of the Local Plan.

Crest Nicholson have been meeting with both Mountnessing Parish Council and Mountnessing Primary School (Headteacher and Governors) regarding the potential to develop the site for housing. There is a general recognition that the proposals would bring substantial positive benefits to the village including maintaining the future of the existing primary school, assisting to meet local housing (including affordable) needs and ensuring the short and longer term viability of local shops and services. The positive quotes below have been provided by the Primary School and Parish Council.

"With the assurance that the proposed site is well screened and secured the school has no objections in principle to the proposed development. The potential increase in pupil numbers arising from the proposed housing development is welcomed. The prospect of extending the provision of the unique education provided by Mountnessing Primary school to more children is both challenging and exciting. However, an increasing number of pupils within the present school is utilizing the school buildings and infrastructure to the full and additional facilities would be essential to accommodate an increase in roll. We would welcome a study to be undertaken by the Local Education Authority to consider our future requirements and the details of the study to be included for consideration in the Section 106 notice."

Governors of Mountnessing Primary School - Date: 12th February 2015-03-12

Following discussions with the Parish Council and a more detailed design-led assessment of the site, there has been a reduction in the number of residential properties proposed. The Parish Council do not object to the principle of residential development on the site.

'Following ongoing consultation with Crest Nicholson, we can confirm that Mountnessing
Parish Council do not object to the principle of residential development on the land
adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School. Whilst we have concerns over the Crossby
Close access we acknowledge that the reduction in the proposed number of dwellings
and sensitive treatment of the access road scheme will be helpful.'

Mountnessing Parish Council

Date: 13th February 2015

Crest Nicholson will continue to develop the plans in consultation with the Parish Council, Mountnessing Primary School and the local community.

Q4: Given the greater capacity for growth along the A127 corridor, which of the sites
put forward do you think is the best location for growth?

As above in queston Q3, none are appropriate in this area on the periphery of the Borough.

Q5: Should the A12 corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites on the edge of
urban areas?

Yes, as referred to the response to Questions 1-3.

Q6: In order to provide for local need is it preferable for Greenfield sites on the edge
of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within the Green Belt)?

It is considered that the release of Greenfield sites on the edge of villages is the preferred approach. The development of Greenfield sites avoids village cramming in areas where urban capacity is already non-existent (for example in Mountnessing). This would not be a sustainable solution to the delivery new homes as it is anticipated that only a small number of homes would be built and therefore would not meet objectively assessed needs. Furthermore, small scale urban development (under 10 units) would not deliver much needed affordable housing provision.

The delivery of Greenfield sites allows for higher quality, lower density, well landscaped housing development. The delivery of larger scale development will also provide planning benefits including financial contributions to local services.

Q12: Have we considered the main infrastructure issues? Are there other important issues to consider?

Greater reference is required to maintaining village services and local social infrastructure.

Q13: What do you think the priorities for infrastructure spending should be?

We consider that education should be a priority especially in relation to extending the provision of education provided by Mountnessing Primary school.

REPRESENTATION IN RELATION TO SITE 076 LAND SOUTH OF REDROSE LANE

These planning representations have been prepared by Savills UK on behalf of Crest Nicholson Eastern in response to Brentwood Borough Council's Strategic Growth Options Consultation. The representations specifically relate to site 076 (SHLAA site G070A), Land South of Redrose Lane, Blackmore.

A Vision Statement has been prepared which identifies the benefits and opportunities for the site which is enclosed as Appendix 1.

We set out below responses to the relevant questions as out in the Strategic Growth
Options Consultation document.

Q1: Do you agree with the broad areas, for the purpose of considering approaches to growth?

No.

We acknowledge that 'Growth Option B' (A12 Corridor) warrants consideration, particularly around Brentwood, at the top of the Borough's settlement hierarchy. However, sites within this corridor need to be well contained by defensive, permanent boundaries and represent an appropriate scale in relation to the settlement they adjoin (supported by localised ONS data on household growth). The ability to mitigate development in transport impact terms will also need to be demonstrated.

'Growth Option A' which supports the growth of villages in the north of the Borough should be given priority. As the consultation document acknowledges, "it is important to consider allowing villages to grow in order to provide for local need". This approach not only seeks to meet local, settlement specific housing needs to address localised affordability issues but it is also necessary to retain the working age population in the village to ensure the viability and vitality of local shops and services. As such, support is given to the development of the most sustainable Green Belt site/sites on the edge of villages with the capacity to meet settlement-specific housing needs. We acknowledge that the villages have a rural setting so it is also imperative that these sites can be delivered in the short term by a housebuilder with a proven track record of delivering high quality, low density, well-landscaped schemes.

Crest Nicholson is the current National Housebuilder of the Year and is a local company based in Brentwood.

We object to the quantum of 4-6,000 homes that has been proposed at the Dunton Garden Suburb (Growth Option C) on the periphery of the Borough, which would not assist in meeting the existing settlement specific housing and socio-economic needs within Brentwood and especially the villages throughout the Borough.

The principle of an urban extension to the settlement of Basildon is not objected to but the quantum of cross-boundary development suggested is not logical, nor justified by any meaningful evidence. The area within the administrative boundary of Brentwood has a number of environmental constraints and the quantum proposed will require a significant upgrade to strategic infrastructure. The time frames for the delivery of such an extensive development will not address the acute local housing shortage within Brentwood that exists now. It is considered that reliance on a single site within a Local Plan is not a sustainable approach to meet housing need, and is one that has been heavily criticised by a number of Inspectors at recent Local Plan Examinations.

It is further considered that the only viable, appropriate and logical area for housing within the Dunton Garden Suburb area is immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of Basildon Town.

Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised within each of these areas?

We agree with paragraph 2.15 of the Strategic Growth Options Consultation Document where it is stated that in order to provide for local need, villages should be allowed to grow, and the edge of villages could be released from the Green Belt to enable this.

We agree with the Council's consideration of Green Belt release because there is
insufficient brownfield land to meet its objectively assessed need (OAN) (as indicated at paragraph 1.4 of the consultation document). We would reassure the Council that Hundal v South Buckinghamshire (DC 2012) demonstrates that housing need is capable of justifying a change in the Green Belt boundaries. Taking this point into practice, St Albans City and District Council (another Metropolitan Green Belt authority) is preparing its Local Plan to meet full OAN with Green Belt release on the basis that 'exceptional circumstances' do exist because there is insufficient brownfield capacity and no alternative locations beyond the Green Belt. This situation is materially the same as can be observed in Brentwood Borough and we subsequently support the consideration of Green Belt release. Therefore, where there are suitable, sustainably located Green Belt sites adjoining villages such as Blackmore, they should be released for residential development.

Whilst the document refers to meeting local housing need through the release of land within the Green Belt at each village, clarification is required on how this is defined. It is essential that the most appropriate site is allocated at each village which has the capacity to meet settlement specific needs over the next 10 years (for example site 076). As mentioned previously, this is crucial to maintain the viability/vitality of village services.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular sites?

This document specifically supports the site at Land South of Redrose Lane, Blackmore (076) which we consider should be released from the Green Belt, in order to meet the existing and future housing and socio-economic requirements within Blackmore.

A Local Housing Requirements Study for Blackmore, prepared by Barton Wilmore (August 2013) concludes that projected household growth at Blackmore will generate a need for between circa 81- 98 dwellings over the next 20 years (or approximately 60-75 though the proposed Plan Period 2015-2030). It is considered that the Land south of Redrose Lane is the only sustainable housing option within Blackmore to meet this need in the short-to medium term.

The Vision Statement at Appendix 1 demonstrates how the Site could be sensitively developed to provide a sustainable, high quality scheme in the region of 40 residential units.

The site is suitable for a number of reasons:

The site is well screened, with defensible boundaries on four sides, ensuring that visual impact from the proposals will be minimal, and considerably less than other promoted sites;

* The site does not result in any symptoms of coalescence and is located within an area of established residential character, that presents itself as a logical extension to the existing settlement boundary;
* The site does not perform the function of preserving the setting and special character of
a historic town or any assets of historic value;
* No environmental or ecological constraints have been identified on the site that would
prevent its development for residential use; and
* The proposals would result in a number of significant socio-economic community
benefits.

Access to the site is achievable from Red Rose Lane which has been agreed in principle with Highway Officers. Pedestrian access is possible from the north-west corner of the site via a new footpath link connecting to a short section of new footway on the south side of Red Rose Lane. The new footway extends south to the existing footway that currently terminates opposite Orchard Piece, from which point existing footways facilitate walk trips to the village centre.

Within BBC's SHLAA (2011) and "Draft Site Assessment" (July 2013) which supports the Local Plan, "Land South of Redrose Lane, Blackmore (ref G070A)" is identified as appropriate for housing development for 89 units. It should be noted that a design-led approach has resulted in a lower-density scheme of approximately 40 residential units. The Vision Statement enclosed at Appendix 1 identifies the benefits and opportunities for the site.

BBC states in their SHLAA that the site is:
* Suitable: The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and contained by Redrose Lane ,Fingrith Hall Lane and Chelmsford Road. The site comprises land used for grazing. The site is bounded on one side by residential properties. Development in this location would help to support the viability and vitality of existing services and potentially provide new services
* Available: The site is available for residential development; and
* Achievable: Residential development on this site would be achievable due to its
location within an attractive area. Due to its size this site would be brought forward by a medium sized developer.

A total of 7 sites (not including the subject site) are considered in the SHLAA. Two of the sites are on brownfield land and can only achieve approximately 1 dwelling (B140 and B141). The remaining 5 sites are located on greenfield land. Three of these sites are discounted due to the unacceptable intrusion into the countryside G041, G044 south and G044 west). One other site can only achieve one dwelling (G146).

The remaining Green Belt site G070 lies to the west of the subject site. This site has many similarities due to its close proximity to the subject site. However it is more open in nature, does not have clear defensible boundaries on all sides and development would have a greater impact on existing residential properties. The site also lies to the north west of Blackmore which represents an important green gateway into the village, characterised by open space either side of Nine Ashes Road (including Blackmore Millenium Park). The north eastern part of Blackmore is distinctly different in character due to its more enclosed nature and the existing residential development along Chelmsford Road.

As such it is considered that the subject site is the only suitable site around Blackmore.

Land South of Redrose Lane (076) is being promoted by Crest Nicholson who are National Housebuilder of the Year and are fully committed to delivering a high quality, low density, well-landscaped scheme.

Q4: Given the greater capacity for growth along the A127 corridor, which of the sites put forward do you think is the best location for growth?

As above in queston Q3, none are appropriate in this area on the periphery of the Borough.

Q5: Should the A12 corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites on the edge of urban areas?

Yes, some growth is understandable given the supporting road infrastructure.

Q6: In order to provide for local need is it preferable for Greenfield sites on the edge of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within the Green Belt)?

It is considered that the release of Greenfield sites on the edge of villages is the preferred approach. The development of Greenfield sites avoids village cramming in areas where urban capacity is already non-existent (for example in Blackmore). This would not be a sustainable solution to the delivery new homes as it is anticipated that only a small number of homes would be built and therefore would not meet objectively assessed needs.

Furthermore, small scale urban development (under 10 units) would not deliver much needed affordable housing provision.

The delivery of Greenfield sites allows for higher quality, lower density, well landscaped housing development. The delivery of larger scale development will also provide planning benefits including financial contributions to local services.

Q12: Have we considered the main infrastructure issues? Are there other important issues to consider?

Greater reference is required to maintaining village services and social infrastructure.

Q13: What do you think the priorities for infrastructure spending should be?

We consider that education should be a priority.

Commissioning school places in Essex 2013/18 (2014) confirms that Blackmore Primary School currently has capacity to accommodate an additional 17 pupils. The provision of family housing on Land at Redrose Lane would be beneficial in terms of ensuring sufficient numbers on roll to meet this capacity. This would have a positive impact on the existing school and wider community with more children given access to extend learning opportunities. It will also ensure that the village has a wider age diversity which will enable the retention of a working age population in future years and secure the long term viability of shops and services.