These representations are submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd in relation to the Brentwood Borough Council Proposed Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) (PSLP), and in particular with regards to our clients land north of the A1023 (Chelmsford Road), Shenfield, which has been allocated as part of a wider allocation area under Policy R03 of the PSLP. A plan showing the site is provided as Appendix A to this representation. Countryside was founded in Essex 60 years ago by Alan Cherry and has since established a reputation for delivering high quality developments. With the ethos 'creating places people love', Countryside's achievements are exemplified through having won more Housing Design Awards than any other house builder. Countryside is a major development and place-maker, having secured planning permission and building out developments in varying scales: from smaller 30 dwelling schemes on the edge of village's through to large urban extensions of 3,500 new homes plus associated community facilities. Countryside has a proven track record of delivery. The company is headquartered in Brentwood and has a proud legacy of local sites such as Clements Park and the Square on Hart Street. The representations set out Countryside Properties position in relation to the allocation of the site as part of a wider strategic allocation 'R03' Land north of Shenfield and is an important contribution towards BBC's land supply for Brentwood's Draft Local Plan. The representations provide comments on the relevant policies relating to those interests in the Draft Plan. As the Council will be aware, representations have previously been made on behalf of the original landowner of the site, on the Preferred Options Consultation in October 2013 and the Strategic Growth Options Consultation February 2015, and the Regulation 18 Local Plan in March 2018. As a result of these representations and the discussions that have been held with officers at Brentwood Borough Council alongside the Local Plan process, the site has been allocated as part of a wider allocation proposed for strategic mixed-use development on land north and south of Chelmsford Road in Shenfield, between the A12 to the north west and the railway line to the south west. Previous representation have included supporting information relating to landscape visual and Green Belt impacts have demonstrated the low value of the site in this respect, which have respectively support its proposed allocation. This representation therefore builds on this and should be read in conjunction with this information provided previously. Countryside Properties overall position is one of firm support for the PSLP and this is expressed where relevant in these representations, albeit with some overarching concerns, notably in relation to the elements of the Housing, Employment and Development Management Policies and the housing trajectory relating to the delivery of Policy R03 during the plan period. Where concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist the Council to make the Plan more robust and improving its soundness in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy. The site extends to a total area of 4.4ha, albeit the Council have previously defined the net developable area as 3.44ha. The site is located to the north of Chelmsford Road (A1023) and immediately south of the A12, directly south west of the A12/A1023/B1102 gyratory and westbound A12 slip road. The linear residential development of Chelmsford Road lies to the south of the site. The PSLP has recognised the sustainability of the site and enclosed character, as has been evidence through previous representations of the site, and have therefore proposed it for removal from the Green Belt and for its allocation to provide housing. We support this allocation but do however have some concerns over other policies in the PSLP that may have implications for the efficient and timely delivery of this site. Housing Needs: Paragraph 4.13 of the PSLP states that the Borough's housing requirement is 350 dwellings per annum. Paragraph 4.12 confirms that this figure is calculated using the Standard Method (as per the NPPF and respective Planning Practice Guidance(PPG)). We note that the PPG now confirms that the 2014-based subnational household projection should be used to calculate housing requirements using the Standard Method (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 2a-004-20190220). On this basis, the relevant subnational population projections indicate an average annual increase of 293.2 households in the Borough between 2019 and 2029. The latest (2017) ratio of median house price to median gross annual workplace-based earnings for the Borough published by the ONS is 11.23. Once the Standard Method is applied using these figures this results in a requirement of 452 dwellings per annum. The NPPF requires Local Plans to meet this need as a minimum, whilst also allowing sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change. At paragraph 4.16 the PSLP considers it appropriate to apply a 20% uplift to the identified housing target of 350 dwellings per annum, resulting in a proposed target of 456 dwellings per annum. The rationale for this buffer is unclear with separate references to the buffer advising that it allows for an additional housing land supply to maintained, but also that it serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, pending the outcome of the Government's 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance'. Despite the outcome of the technical consultation now having been confirmed, the proposed annual housing target of the PSLP only fractionally exceeds the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and therefore does not provide any flexibility or Green Belt protection. Moreover, the figure does not allow provision for unmet need from neighbouring authorities in addition to the minimum requirement. At 4.18 the PSLP confirms the Council have not been able to identify a five-year housing land supply to deliver the annualised requirement. Further to this, at 4.19 the PSLP confirms that there is a high proportion of designated Green Belt within the Borough, making it extremely difficult to achieve a five-year supply due to the fact that sites on the edge of settlements, currently within the Green Belt are not available for development purposes until the adoption of the Plan. The Borough has a limited amount of previously developed land within its authority to provide for short term delivery, as such Green Belt release is required in order to meet the Authorities housing need and deliver within the short, medium and long term, as stated at paragraph 2.54 of the PSLP. The approach to amend the Green Belt boundaries is therefore supported. Despite the outcome of the technical consultation now having been confirmed, the proposed annual housing target of the PSLP only fractionally exceeds the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and therefore does not provide any flexibility, Green Belt protection or unmet need from neighbouring authorities in addition to the minimum requirement. In respect of the above, whilst the current PSLP and associated housing allocations seek to go some way in delivering housing that will support the recognised needs of the Borough over the next 15 years, there is clearly a need to increase this provision. Whilst this could be helped through the identification of additional sites, ensuring the delivery and efficient use of the sites that are allocated for housing will also provide a degree of buffer. Further commentary and recommendations in this regard are provided later within this representation. Five-year Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory: The Council is required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at any point in the plan period (Paragraph: 038 Reference ID: 3-038-20180913). The NPPF (Paragraph 73) confirms that a 20% buffer should be applied to the initial calculation for a five-year housing land supply requirement, in the event that the results of the Housing Delivery Test show that there has been significant under delivery of housing over the previous three years, to improve the prospect of achieving the planned supply. From November 2018 significant under delivery indicates that delivery was below 85% of the requirement for the Borough. The PPG (Paragraph: 037 Reference ID: 3-037-20180913) also confirms that the requirement for a 20% buffer also applies where a Local Planning Authority are seeking to confirm their five-year housing land supply through a recently adopted Local Plan. The results of the 2018 Housing Delivery Test confirmed that Brentwood have delivered just 50% of the housing requirement over the last three years and this is therefore well below the threshold for the 20% buffer requirement. The Borough's most recent reported five-year housing land supply (Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2018 (November 2018) ('HLSS') is 4.1 years. This is predicated on a requirement which, when considered in relation to the latest guidance, understates need; and a supply which, again when considered in relation to latest guidance, overstates supply. As such, the actual housing land supply is noticeably less. Looking at this in detail, the HLSS considers an annual need of 343 dwellings, resulting in a total requirement once the 20% has been applied of 2,058 dwellings. However, applying the latest guidance and the Standard Method, the Borough's housing requirement is 452 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% buffer, this results in a five-year requirement of 2,712 dwellings. In terms of supply, the HLSS includes sites without detailed planning permission and without evidence such sites will be delivered within five years. As per the Glossary contained within Annex 2 of the NPPF, such sites cannot be considerable deliverable for the purposes of the five-year housing land supply. Table 1 of the HLSS suggests that at least 1,042 dwellings in the reported supply did not have planning permission. Once these are removed from the supply calculation, the five-year supply comprises 653 dwellings. It is unclear if and how many of the dwellings categorised as having extant planning permission are on major sites which only benefit from outline permission. Such sites would also have to be discounted. As such, the figure of 653 dwellings may overstate housing supply. A five-year supply of 653 dwellings compared to a requirement of 2,712 represents a 1.2-year housing land supply. This acute housing land supply shortage demonstrates the importance of allocating sites through the Local Plan which can delivery early in the plan period, and support the existing supply of housing. It also emphasises the need to avoid over-reliance on large strategic sites which inevitably take longer to deliver. The housing trajectory provided as Appendix 1 to the PSLP projects that it will enable completion of 2,305 dwellings between 2019/20 and 2023/24. Having regard to the Standard Method and the need to apply a 20% buffer to the housing requirement, the total five-year requirement for the Borough is 2,712 dwellings. Therefore, even before critical review of the supply, the PSLP will not provide a five-year supply of housing. Policy R03 - Land North of Shenfield: Policy R03 deals with land to the north of Shenfield, known as Officer's Meadow and surrounding land. The entire allocation area comprises an area of 58.2ha and it is intended that the area will provide around 825 new homes; land for a co-located primary school, early years and childcare nursery; residential care home; 5% self-build and custom build; and 2ha of land for employment purposes across a net developable area of 28.2ha. We are of the understanding that the majority of these primary facilities will be provided within the main portion of the allocated area, to the south/ south west of Chelmsford Road, which immediately adjoins the existing settlement boundary and will therefore be directly accessible and central to the strategic development as a whole. Countryside Properties land is also known as site 158, as assessed by the Council within Brentwood Borough Council's Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (2018). The site measures 4.4ha (gross area) and was considered by the Council to comprise a net area of 3.44ha and capable of delivering 100 dwellings. The site forms one of a number of sites that together form the Strategic Allocation under Policy R03, Land north of Shenfield. Employment Land Provision: Policy R03 refers to the provision of 2ha of employment land across the site allocation as a whole. However, it is noted that Figure 7.6 of the PSLP identifies a new employment land allocation of 2ha at land north of A1023 - the site the subject of this representation, and a more specific reference than that contained within the PSLP policy wording. We note the combined requirement for employment land set out in Figure 7.5 of the PSLP, which confirms that the maximum level of employment land expected to be required over the plan period is 45.96ha. This is a maximum, with the lower expectation falling to 33.76ha, dependent on the forecasting scenario use. Respectively, Figure 7.6 recognises a predicted total of 47.39ha of employment land to be delivered through the new Local Plan and this provision therefore currently exceeds even the highest level of forecasted need. We are aware that previous representations and the submission to the Regulation 18 Consultation in particular did consider the potential for the delivery of up to 2ha of employment uses on the site. Since this time however, Countryside Properties have now taken on the promotion of the site. This has been supported by an additional level of due diligence which, alongside further discussions with Brentwood Borough Council officers, have identified a need to discount an employment-led development on this site. Discussions with Brentwood Borough Council have confirmed that the site presents an opportunity to provide a key gateway into Shenfield and onto Brentwood in this location, our client is confident of the ability to deliver this either through exemplary residential and landscape-led design at the entrance to the site, or through a smaller provision of employment land which is respective of the current market and likely demand in this location, and not necessarily accommodating 2ha of land. Considering the employment uses referred to in Policy PC02, it has been agreed during discussions that an entirely B1 office frontage for the site would not be suited to this role, given that such a use would be unlikely to generate a visually prolific building or a flagship/feature. It would also generally be expected for offices to be located in a more urban and/or town centre location as opposed to this edge of settlement siting, and therefore doubt exists as to the likely interest in B1 premises in this location. B2 industrial or B8 storage uses would not be consistent with the desire for this location to act as a gateway to the area also, and also the implications that such a use could have on the A12 gyratory through the associated movements of HGVs and other vehicles. We are aware that there has been interest in the use of the site for other employment generating and commercial uses which would not fall under B-class uses and may be able to play a better role in the formation of a key gateway in this location. It is recognized however that the spatial requirements of such uses are again unlikely to meet a full 2ha of land. The proposed provision of employment uses on this site has not been justified and is not effective. The provision of 2ha on this site is not required to meet the Borough's identified employment need and conflicts with the deliverability of new homes on the site to meet the Council's housing need. As such, the provision of 2ha of land for employment purposes should be removed from the policy. In the interests of ensuring effective delivery, the Council should also consider the benefits of extending the provision of existing or larger proposed employment sites to account for flexibility that may be required on smaller allocations in response to market fluctuations and the viability of mixed use schemes. Countryside Properties are supportive of the land north of Chelmsford Road, Shenfield (ref.158) being identified as an opportunity to deliver a key gateway to Brentwood from the southbound A12. However, Countryside Properties consider the objective of a key gateway needs to be achieved through careful design in consultation with key stakeholders. In order to make Policy R03 effective, it is proposed that the wording in part (e) of the Policy is removed in its entirety, and for part A of Policy R03 to read: a) Amount and type of development; b) Provision for at least 825 new homes of mixed size and type, including affordable housing; c) Provision of land (circa 2.1 hectares) for a co-located primary school and early years and childcare nursery (Use Class D1); d) Provision for a residential care home (around 60 bed scheme as part of the overall allocation); e) Provision for 5% self-build and custom build across the entire allocation area. Whilst the site may have the potential to provide employment generating uses, a large scale provision of B-use class uses as required under Policies PC02 and PC03 is unlikely to be suitable for the site and the respective restrictive nature of this current wording. Countryside would however support the reintroduction of the wording presented to members which included: e) consideration for provision of appropriate new employment development on land north of Chelmsford Road. Figure 7.6 of the PSLP should be amended to reflect the proposed changes detailed above. The table included as this figure should therefore remove reference to Part of R03 - Land north of A1023 as a new employment allocation for 2ha. Unit Numbers: The wording of allocation policies such as Policy R03 should take the requirement for housing delivery flexibility into account, and therefore be worded to provide "at least 825 new homes", as opposed to "around 825 new homes". We consider that this would provide greater certainty on the number of homes to be delivered as part of each allocation for Brentwood Borough Council, and also allows for the delivery of additional units where appropriate opportunities may arise. For land north of A1023, a significant amount of feasibility work has been undertaken to establish any site constraints, and as a result of this, Countryside are confident in the ability for the site to provide at least 150 homes. We have concerns that the respective policy's current format may be interpreted to confirm the optimum use of the site, rather than a lower limit. In fact, the 100-unit figure has been produced by Brentwood Borough Council with far less rationale and technical justification than has been undertaken by Countryside Properties and may lessen the ability of this site and other policies with similar wording to support Brentwood's need for a buffer and flexibility in their housing land supply. Policy SP03 Health Impact Assessments: The Policy requires planning applications for developments of 50 or more to be dwellings, non-residential development of 1,000sqm or more or schemes for C2 class developments to be supported by HIAs. The HBF response to this policy is unsupportive and they consider the policy to be unsound as it is not consistent with national policy and is ineffective. We are in agreement with the HBF's response, dated 17th March 2019, in relation to the requirement for HIAs to be provided for 50 or more dwellings and consider the requirement to be unnecessary and an additional burden on applicants. Referring to the PPG we note that HIAs may be useful tools, however the PPG also expresses the importance of the local plan needing to consider the wider health issues in an area and ensuring the policies respond to these concerns. The guidance is provided below for completeness. Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 53-002-20140306 confirms that provision of the required health infrastructure should be supported and taken into account at local and neighbourhood plan making, and when determining planning applications. Referring to National policy, paragraph 20 states that Strategic Policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, this includes infrastructure and community facilities. In order for the local plan to be consistent with national policy, the Local Plan should already consider the impact of development on the health and wellbeing of the communities and any identified infrastructure should be addressed in policy. Therefore, whilst Countryside support the important consideration of health and wellbeing of communities where development is in line with the policies contained within the development plan a HIA should not be necessary. The requirement for a HIA should only be triggered where there is a departure from the plan, enabling the Council to assess any impacts on the health and wellbeing of the community as a result of said proposals. Policy SP05 Construction Management: The Policy expects all major development schemes/developers to sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme, or equivalent. The scheme is a non-profit making, independent organisation which monitors construction sites signed up to the scheme, with the aim of managing and mitigating impacts arising from construction. This requirement is considered unjustified and inconsistent with national policy. Whilst we recognise the importance of managing the potential impacts on construction sites, we consider this policy to be unsound because it is unjustified and not consistent with national policy. We would suggest that consideration for the scheme is best dealt with through planning applications and development management without it being written into formal planning policy. We are not aware of any other adopted or emerging Local Plan which requires applicants and developers of major sites to enter into a specified construction management scheme and therefore question the reasonableness of this policy. The matter of construction management should be assessed on a case by case basis and should not be a matter for a strategic policy to prescribe. How a construction scheme is managed and mitigated should be an item for consideration by the decision taker and assessed on a case by case basis. The imposition of Policy SP05 requires all major developments to be signed up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme regardless of the site or proposal details. It is recommended that this policy is removed. Policy BE02 Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency: We consider the policy to be unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy. Part (f) of Policy BE02 requires the inclusion of renewable and decentralised energy as part of a new development, this is not consistent with national policy. Whilst Countryside recognise the importance of sustainable construction, a policy approach to such requirements does not allow for the appropriate flexibility in this regard, as recognised in the NPPF. Paragraph 153 of the NPPF states that local plans can expect development to meet such provisions, however the NPPF also states that they are only required to comply with such policies where it is either feasible or viable. To ensure consistency with national policy part (f) of Policy BE02 should be amended to reflect this position. Policy BE03 Carbon Reduction, Renewable Energy and Water Efficiency: It is Government policy to seek to deliver improvements to emissions from buildings through the building regulations regime. As such we do not consider it necessary to include the table at part (a) of this policy. Should a national zero carbon policy be introduced it will be achieved and applied through building regulations. We therefore echo those comments of the HBF's consultation response, dated 17th March 2019, and suggest that if the building regulations are updated then the Council should revisit the policy through a local plan review at that stage, but that such matters are dealt with through building regulations in the meantime to prevent unnecessary duplicate consideration of such matters through both planning and construction stages. Policy BE04 Establishing Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Infrastructure Network: It is acknowledged that the Government support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, including support towards renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Countryside support these intentions. Part (b) of Policy BE04 expects sites of over 500 dwellings, including where there are clusters of neighbouring sites that total over 500 units, shall incorporate decentralized energy infrastructure in line with a hierarchy however. We raise concerns in relation to the deliverability of part (b) of the policy in relation to sites within a cluster of 500 or more dwellings given that neighbouring sites will not necessary come forward by multiple landowners and developers at similar times. The coordinating and implementation of a heat network to serve smaller scale sites as separate applications but adjacent to other similar sized sites in the locality, is unreasonable and unjustified and could result in a delay in delivery of new homes, resulting in an ineffective local plan. It is recommended that the requirement for new development located where 'clusters' of neighbouring sites totals over 500 units should be removed from the policy in order to make the policy effective. Policy BE10 Connecting New Developments to Digital Infrastructure: It is Government policy to support the expansion of electronic communications networks. However, we would draw the Council's attention to the Written Ministerial Statement, 25th March 2015, which announced that local planning authorities preparing Local Plans, "should not set any additional standards or requirements relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new dwellings." The Local Planning Authority are only allowed to adopt the three optional technical standards, in relation to construction, internal layout and performance, subject to evidenced need and viability. As such, the Council should not seek higher standards than Building Regulations, as already referred to in our response to Policy BE03. Therefore, Policy BE10 is considered unsound because it is unjustified and contrary to national policy. We are also unaware of National Policy requiring benches and bins to be connected to mobile digital infrastructure. As such the policy is unjustified and contrary to national policy. Countryside are committed to ensuring that all developments go as far as is practical to meet national intentions to ensure the quality, practicality and future-proofing of new housing developments. We have concerns however that by introducing a wealth of additional planning policies in these areas, there will be unnecessary duplication to building regulations, and potentially delays to planning applications which will in turn impact on the timely delivery of new homes. Summary: Countryside Properties generally support the plan, however alterations to the PSLP can enforce the soundness of the Plan, ensuring it has been positively prepared, justified and effective and consistent with national policy. The proposed allocation of land north of A1023 as part of the wider R03 strategic allocation within the PSLP is supported. Countryside do however raise concerns about the soundness of the Plan in relation to the approach taken to development management policies and timing of delivery of the site proposed for allocation. Policies mentioned above, appear to be based on an idealistic approach which does not account for different site constraints and flexibility in development management which would in turn help to protect the Council's supply of housing and robustness of the PSLP. The proposed amendments to the employment provision within Policy R03 will make the approach taken justified and effective. The proposed alterations will help to ensure that this policy is positively prepared and a justified approach for the site has taken into account the recognised constraints and the site is delivered in accordance with the expected delivery timescales, and that Brentwood can therefore meet housing needs as planned. The proposed amendments will also allow for flexibility over unit numbers in the event that the site can support the recognised need for a greater buffer and flexibility towards housing delivery over the Plan period. (Figure included in attached document).

To ensure the Local Plan is sound, further suitable sites within Ingatestone should be allocated to ensure the sustainable growth, including Site 078.

This representation on the Brentwood Borough Proposed Submission Local Plan
(February 2019) (PSLP) is submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Barnoaks
Management Ltd. The representation is made in relation to Land south of the B1002,
Ingatestone. The site is referenced as 078 in the Council's plan making process. A location plan showing the site is provided at Appendix A of this representation. The site has previously been submitted through the Council's Call for Sites (2011) and
the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (Ref: GO20). In the
SHLAA, the site was defined as a 'greenfield parcel with potential'. More recently, the site was submitted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (2018) (Ref: 078). The site was defined in the HELAA as a suitable, achievable and available site for residential development, which could come forward within 1 - 5 years. Representations were also submitted to Brentwood Borough Council through the Regulation 18 Consultation (2018). The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the delivery of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary of Ingatestone, on land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt. Currently, the site is not proposed to be allocated for residential development. The
rejection of the site for allocation is considered unjustified. The allocation of land south of the B1002, Ingatestone, for residential development would represent a sustainable and deliverable proposal to help meet housing needs over the coming plan period. The proposed plan period runs until 2033. Assuming - optimistically - adoption in 2019, this means that the Local Plan will address development needs for a maximum of 14 years. The NPPF (Paragraph 22) is clear that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from the date of adoption. This deficiency in the PSLP is of particular relevance given that the Borough is predominately Green Belt, and failure to ensure that development needs are planned
for over a sufficient period of time would likely result in an early review of the Green Belt being required - contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 136); and undermining one of the two essential characteristics of the Green Belt; its permanence (NPPF, Paragraph 133). At paragraph 4.13 of the PSLP, it states that the Borough's housing requirement it plans for is 350 dwellings per annum. At paragraph 4.12 it states that this figure has been calculated using the Standard Method (as per the NPPF and accompanying PPG). However, this does not appear to be the case having regard to updated guidance. The PPG now confirms that 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method. The relevant subnational population projections indicate an average annual increase of 293.2 households in the Borough between 2019 and 2029. The latest (2017) ratio of median house price to median gross annual workplace-based earnings for the Borough published by the ONS is 11.23. Once the Standard Method is applied using these figures this result in a requirement of 452 dwellings per annum, not 350. The Local Plan is required to meet this need as a minimum (NPPF paragraph 35); and with sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (NPPF paragraph 11). In addition, the Local Plan is required to ensure that the revised Green Belt can endure beyond the plan period (NPPF paragraph 136), i.e. in amending the Green Belt boundary, the Local Plan should account for development needs beyond 2033 (or, more appropriately, a revised later end to the plan period, which will ensure strategic policies will cover at least 15 years). A further factor is the need to consider unmet needs of neighbouring authorities (NPPF paragraph 35). In this respect, we note in particular that Epping Forest District Council is at an advanced stage in the preparation of a Local Plan (at the time of writing it is currently being examined) which proposes to deliver 11,400 dwellings between 2011 and 2033 (518 dwellings per annum), against a requirement (based on the Standard Method) of 944 dwellings per annum. We are not aware of Brentwood Borough Council having objected to this approach, but neither is there any indication that the PSLP addresses any of this unmet need. The PSLP considers it appropriate to apply a 20% uplift to the identified housing target of 350 dwellings per annum, resulting in a proposed target of 456 dwellings per annum. The PSLP's rationale for this buffer is somewhat unclear: it states at Figure 4.1 that the buffer allows for an additional housing land supply to be maintained in the Borough throughout the plan period; but states at footnote 2 that the housing supply buffer serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, pending the outcome of the Government's 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance'. In any case, the uplift means that the proposed annual housing target in the PSLP is only fractionally above the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and does not provide any flexibility to ensure needs are met; does not ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period; and does not account for unmet need in neighbouring authorities. Further to our comments in respect of the plan period, and the PSLP's failure to ensure strategic policies are in place to cover at least 15 years from adoption, as an absolute minimum the PSLP must be amended to ensure an additional years' worth of housing need can be accommodated. Given likely timescales for adoption of the Local Plan, we suggest a plan period to 2035 should be treated as a minimum, and an additional two years' worth of development needs to that which the PSLP currently seeks to address should be planned for. Whilst we suggest 2035 should be the treated as the earliest end to the plan period, it should also be recognised that the authority is predominantly Green Belt. The NPPF requires this Local Plan to ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period. As such, we suggest the PSLP that even if the plan period is extended until 2035, policies should account for potential development needs beyond this period. The Council is required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at any point in the plan period. In terms of the five-year housing requirement, the NPPF (paragraph 73) confirms a 20% buffer should be applied to the initial calculation in the event the results of the Housing Delivery Test show that delivery has fallen below 85% of the requirement. The PPG confirms the requirement to apply such a buffer in such circumstances also applies where the Local Planning Authority are seeking to confirm their five-year housing land supply through a recently adopted Local Plan. The 2018 Housing Delivery Test measurement for Brentwood Borough shows that only 51% of the Borough's housing requirements were met over the last three years; well below the figure required to avoid a 20% buffer having to be applied. The Borough's most recent reported five-year housing land supply (Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2018 (November 2018) ('HLSS') is 4.1 years. However, this is predicated on a requirement which, when considered in relation to the latest guidance, understates need; and a supply which, again when considered in relation to latest guidance, overstates supply. As such, the actual housing land supply is considerably less. Looking at this in detail, the HLSS considers an annual need of 343 dwellings, resulting in a total requirement once the 20% has been applied of 2,058 dwellings. However, applying the latest guidance and the Standard Method, the Borough's housing requirement is 452 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% buffer, this results in a five year requirement of 2,712 dwellings. In terms of supply, the HLSS includes sites without detailed planning permission and
without evidence such sites will be delivered within five years. As per the NPPF, such
sites cannot be considerable deliverable for the purposes of the five-year housing land supply. Table 1 of the HLSS suggests that at least 1,042 dwellings in the reported supply did not have planning permission. Once these are removed from the supply calculation, the five-year supply comprises just 653 dwellings. It is unclear how many of the dwellings categorised as having extant planning permission are on major sites which only benefit from outline permission. Such sites would also have to be discounted. As such, the figure of 653 dwellings may overstate housing supply. A five-year supply of 653 dwellings compared to a requirement of 2,712 represents a 1.2-year housing land supply. The acute housing land supply shortage underlines the importance of allocating sites through the Local Plan which can deliver early in the plan period, and the need to avoid over reliance on large strategic sites which inevitably take a considerable time to bring forward. The housing trajectory provided as Appendix 1 to the PSLP projects that it will enable completion of 2,305 dwellings between 2019/20 and 2023/24 (or, to be precise, it projects 2,305.1 dwellings). Having regard to the Standard Method and the need to apply a 20% buffer to the housing requirement, the total five-year requirement for the Borough is 2,712 dwellings. Therefore, even before critical review of the supply, the PSLP will not provide a five-year supply of housing. Furthermore, and in respect of the projected supply, we are concerned to note that
Dunton Hills Garden Village is projected to delivery housing completions from 2022/23, i.e. falling within the first five years of the plan. Dunton Hills Garden Village is a proposed major strategic development, intended to provide 4,000 dwellings, 5.5 hectares of employment land, two new primary schools, secondary school, new village shopping centre, new transport infrastructure, and new community and health infrastructure. Delivery will require the coordination and input of multiple landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders. The site has yet to even be allocated. Once allocated, the PSLP proposes a masterplan and design guidance will be required to be prepared. Following this, an outline application will need to be prepared, submitted, and determined; followed by reserved matters. It will also be necessary to discharge all planning conditions and S106 obligations. All of this before development has even begun. The ability of larger sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin review (2018) and issues with their complexity have been ably set out in the Lichfield Study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematic due to a range of factors, including establishing the required infrastructure, and the timings of housing delivery associated with those requirements as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Litchfield's report confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5yrs for the planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for sites over 1,000 units. For the above reasons it is unrealistic to project that 100 homes will be completed at
Dunton Hills Garden Village as early as 2022/23. This does not in itself mean that
Dunton Hills Garden Village proposals cannot form part of a sound Local Plan, but it
does mean that additional smaller sites capable of providing homes in the early years of the plan period also need to be allocated in order to ensure the Local Plan is sound. The strategic sites are expected to deliver 1555 dwellings within 5yrs of adoption. Given the matters set out above, this is unrealistic and it would not be justified to rely on these sites to meet short term housing delivery. This emphasises the need to review sites such as ref. 078 to provide for more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery, to ensure the plan is Sound. Ingatestone is defined as a Category 2 Settlement. The Borough defines Category 2
settlements as larger villages in a rural setting, with high levels of accessibility and public transport provision, including rail services. These settlements provide a range of services and facilities to the immediate residential areas and nearby settlements. The PSLP states that appropriate urban extension and brownfield development
opportunities will be encouraged to meet local needs. In 2011, Ingatestone had a population of 4,812 (Census; 2011). It is the Borough's largest village, with a modest level of facilities, including a secondary school. Furthermore, Ingatestone Railway Station is located within the village, and provides frequent railway services to London Liverpool Street, Stratford (London), Chelmsford, Colchester and other surrounding settlements. The PSLP confirms that although Ingatestone has relatively good facilities, a modest level of development is envisaged, due to infrastructure constraints and a lack of suitable sites. As such, only two sites have been allocated for residential development in the PSLP -R21 and R22. This results in a total of 218 dwellings for Ingatestone over the plan period. Site 078 has previously been defined in the HELAA (2018) as suitable, available and achievable site for residential development. The PSLP in this case is flawed, as it doesn't appropriately consider Site 078 as a suitable site for residential development. It is considered that the PSLP fails to support the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The
failure to thoroughly consider Site 078 for residential development is unjustified. To ensure the Local Plan is sound, further suitable sites within Ingatestone should be
allocated to ensure the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the development of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary, on land,
which is currently allocated as Green Belt. The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north and south and the B1002 to the west. To the eastern boundary of the site are agricultural fields. A considerable amount of technical work has been undertaken in respect of land south of the B1002 and has previously been submitted to the Council through previous stages of the plan-making process. The technical work undertaken demonstrates that the site is sustainable, suitable, available and achievable and its development would help meet the Borough's housing need. Work undertaken, and previously provided is included in this representation for completeness: * Proposed Site Plan prepared by Grafik (Appendix B); * Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix C); * Landscape Advisory Plan prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix D); * Access Appraisal by Ardent Engineers (Appendix E). In previous representations submitted to the Council, we have commented specifically on the proposals for layout and landscaping, providing that the site would be allocated for residential development by the Council. A Feasibility Layout prepared by Graffik Architecture has previously been submitted to the Council and is included within this representation for completeness. The feasibility study demonstrates how 54 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The layout illustrates how the site could provide infill development to the already existing settlement of Ingatestone, without adversely harming the landscape character of the area or the character of Ingatestone itself. The Feasibility Layout also shows the potential proposals for landscaping on site. These proposals have been formed through careful consideration of the existing landscape character of Ingatestone and in line with the Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscape Advisory Plan which has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin. The report and plan also accompany this representation. As set out above, a Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscaping Advisory Plan has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin and accompanies this representation. It is proposed that there is to be retained and enhanced landscaping on site, specifically to the eastern and southern boundaries. This landscaping proposal takes into account the Grade II Listed Building - Rays - which is located beyond the eastern boundary of the site. By proposing dense planting at this boundary, it will ensure that the development proposal has no adverse effect on the nearby listed building. The Feasibility Layout also illustrates that planting will be retained at the western boundary of the site at the High Street, where access to the site is proposed. Furthermore, it is illustrated that the existing oak tree at the western part of the site will be retained to provide a substantial area of open space on the site. The Scoping Report suggests that these simple design controls and landscape mitigation measures, such as the protection of existing field boundary hedgerows, along with retaining an open space around the mature Oak Tree at the front of the site, would help to ensure that the proposed development would be as successful as possible in landscape and visual terms. The Scoping Report found that the visual influence of the site to surrounding locations was found to be limited due to the built up nature of the surrounding area, for example the ribbon development to the north and the settlement edge of Ingatestone to the south. The report states that development of the site should be considered as a logical area for infill development along the B1002. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004) requires SA/SEAs to inter alia set out the reasons for the selection of preferred alternatives, and the rejections of others, be made set out. In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance4 makes clear that the strategic
environmental assessment should outline the reasons the alternatives were selected,
the reasons the rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives. Sustainability Appraisal of the PSLP has been published: the Sustainability Appraisal of the Brentwood Local Plan January 2019 (the SA). Paragraph 5.5.31 of the SA confirms that Site 078 is listed as 1 of 5 omission sites in the HELAA as it is "deliverable or developable". The SA confirms that the two sites with the greatest potential for allocation are the adjacent "Parklands" Sites (Ref: 078 and Ref: 243), at the northern boundary of the village. The SA states that the accompanying Green Belt Review found that both sites contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt to a 'moderate' extent, however neither site is fully contained in the landscape. The SA concludes that the option of adding one or more omission sites was determined as "unreasonable", for the purposes of establishing reasonable spatial alternatives. No details are provided to explain in what way Site 078 is considered not to be fully contained in the landscape. Furthermore, as per Section 3 of this representation, the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report confirms that further planting can be provided on site at all boundaries, thus ensuring it is a contained site. The proposed planting would be effective in appropriately screening the proposed development and ensuring the village character of Ingatestone is retained. In short, the SA does not provide a justified reason for the rejection of the site. Turning to the specifics of the SA assessment of the site, these are set out in Table C of the SA. This provides a 'traffic light' assessment of sites' sustainability. Green indicates sites perform well; amber - poorly; red- particularly poorly; against specific criteria. Our first point in relation to the approach taken is that it is very simplistic - the assessment of site appears to be based purely on physical distance to various features / facilities / designations. For example, in relation to criteria 10 (Conservation Area), our site is considered to score 'poorly'. Part of Ingatestone High Street is defined as a Conservation Area, however site 078 is not within this designation and is located at least 400m from the defined Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development of the site would not unacceptably impact the Conservation Area. Furthermore, in relation to criteria 1 (Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located approximately 1 mile from AQMA BRW6 at the A12/Fryerning Lane. It is considered that the AQMA will not be adversely impacted by the site, given the distance between the two. In relation to criteria 8 (Primary School), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located 0.5 miles from both an infant and junior school. It is considered that the primary school provisions within Ingatestone are within walking distance to the site and the site should not be scored as 'poorly' in relation to this criterion. As per the reasons above, we therefore consider the SA's assessment to be flawed. A Green Belt Study and Assessment has been undertaken by Crestwood Environmental
Ltd as part of the Regulation 19 Consultation. The Assessment looks to assess specific green belt parcels in relation to the 4 purposes of the Green Belt. These are: Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging in to one another; Purpose 3 - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Following this assessment, the parcel is given an overall assessment rating. The ratings are; Low; Low-Moderate; Moderate; Moderate - High; High. Site 078 is within Parcel 9A of the Green Belt Assessment. Parcel 9a includes land to the northeast of Ingatestone. The parcel size is 41.94ha. Purpose 1: Parcel 9a is defined by the Council as 'Partly Contained', as it abuts a large built up area. The assessment states that the 'Partly Contained' sites have weak/degraded/unclear boundaries. This is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. Site 078 has clear natural boundaries at the east and to the south. Furthermore, as detailed at Section 3, further planting is proposed at the site in order to contain the proposed development. Purpose 2: Parcel 9a has been assessed as an 'Important Countryside Gap'. The Assessment
states that the parcel forms either a large proportion of countryside gaps between towns or the development of the site would result in the physical narrowing of the gap and potential visual coalescence. As per the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report, it is considered that the site would result in a coherent infill development between two existing areas of developed land. The Scoping Report also confirms that the proposed development of the site wold not result in the coalescence of Margaretting and Ingatestone. Purpose 3: Parcel 9a has been assessed as 'Functional Countryside' (FC). This again, is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. As such, we do not agree that Site 078 can be defined as Functional Countryside. The site is between existing development and can therefore be considered as an infill site. Purpose 4: The assessment states that Parcel 9A has a 'limited relationship with Historic Town'. We agree with this assessment. Overall Brentwood Borough Council have assessed Parcel 9a, as having a 'moderate' contribution to the 4 purposes of Green Belt. The above review of Parcel 9a recognises that this assessment is not necessarily reflective of the qualities of every site within the parcel. In respect of this, we wish to highlight the findings of the Inspector in the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, which we consider helpful in the consideration of the PSLP. Following the Stage 1 and 2 hearing sessions at Welwyn Hatfield, the Inspector provided a note to the Council in December 2017 on its approach to review of the Green Belt (EX39 of the Welywn Hatfield Local Plan Examination). Within this note, the Inspector stated: "The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of
Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks ... I pointed
out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas." "Additionally, the phase 2 Green Belt Review, which did look at a finer grain of sites,
does not appear to have examined all of the potential development sites adjacent to
the urban areas..." "The actual development strategy finally arrived at is a matter for the Council... However, if that strategy fails to meet the FOAHN and assuming that all realistic development opportunities outside of the Green Belt have been put forward in the plan, then it is effectively saying that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying a further release of additional land from the Green Belt and that presumably means for as long as current national green belt policy and its interpretation prevails. That may be the case but unless all of the Green Belt has been forensically analysed in some detail then it is difficult to prove." Having regard to all of the above, key issues to consider include: * Whether all potential sites' impact on the Green Belt has been assessed; * Whether such assessment was undertaken at a sufficiently fine grain to properly consider individual sites' impact on the Green Belt.In respect of the PSLP, it is clear that not all potential development sites were subject to a sufficiently detailed analysis which could enable BBC to justifiably conclude it has identified a reasonable strategy to meet its housing needs, particularly where the plan is not meeting those needs in full. At the very least, there was one site that was not properly assessed: Land to the South of the B1002, Ingatestone. The Council's own evidence base states that Site 078 is suitable, available and achievable for residential development. Development of the site is supported by technical evidence that confirms its suitability, including in relation to the lack of harm to the landscape and Green Belt. The reasons given for the rejection of the Site are based on erroneous conclusions in the evidence base and should be re-examined. The rejection of Site 078 is unjustified, and overlooks an opportunity to correct other soundness deficiencies in respect of the Local Plan, including in relation to the overall quantum of housing proposed in Ingatestone. The allocation of Site 078 for development will assist in curing defects in respect of the
Local Plan, enabling it to be a sound plan.

Whilst we suggest 2035 should be the treated as the earliest end to the plan period, it should also be recognised that the authority is predominantly Green Belt. The NPPF requires this Local Plan to ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period. As such, we suggest the PSLP that even if the plan period is extended until 2035, policies should account for potential development needs beyond this.

This representation on the Brentwood Borough Proposed Submission Local Plan
(February 2019) (PSLP) is submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Barnoaks
Management Ltd. The representation is made in relation to Land south of the B1002,
Ingatestone. The site is referenced as 078 in the Council's plan making process. A location plan showing the site is provided at Appendix A of this representation. The site has previously been submitted through the Council's Call for Sites (2011) and
the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (Ref: GO20). In the
SHLAA, the site was defined as a 'greenfield parcel with potential'. More recently, the site was submitted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (2018) (Ref: 078). The site was defined in the HELAA as a suitable, achievable and available site for residential development, which could come forward within 1 - 5 years. Representations were also submitted to Brentwood Borough Council through the Regulation 18 Consultation (2018). The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the delivery of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary of Ingatestone, on land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt. Currently, the site is not proposed to be allocated for residential development. The
rejection of the site for allocation is considered unjustified. The allocation of land south of the B1002, Ingatestone, for residential development would represent a sustainable and deliverable proposal to help meet housing needs over the coming plan period. The proposed plan period runs until 2033. Assuming - optimistically - adoption in 2019, this means that the Local Plan will address development needs for a maximum of 14 years. The NPPF (Paragraph 22) is clear that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from the date of adoption. This deficiency in the PSLP is of particular relevance given that the Borough is predominately Green Belt, and failure to ensure that development needs are planned
for over a sufficient period of time would likely result in an early review of the Green Belt being required - contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 136); and undermining one of the two essential characteristics of the Green Belt; its permanence (NPPF, Paragraph 133). At paragraph 4.13 of the PSLP, it states that the Borough's housing requirement it plans for is 350 dwellings per annum. At paragraph 4.12 it states that this figure has been calculated using the Standard Method (as per the NPPF and accompanying PPG). However, this does not appear to be the case having regard to updated guidance. The PPG now confirms that 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method. The relevant subnational population projections indicate an average annual increase of 293.2 households in the Borough between 2019 and 2029. The latest (2017) ratio of median house price to median gross annual workplace-based earnings for the Borough published by the ONS is 11.23. Once the Standard Method is applied using these figures this result in a requirement of 452 dwellings per annum, not 350. The Local Plan is required to meet this need as a minimum (NPPF paragraph 35); and with sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (NPPF paragraph 11). In addition, the Local Plan is required to ensure that the revised Green Belt can endure beyond the plan period (NPPF paragraph 136), i.e. in amending the Green Belt boundary, the Local Plan should account for development needs beyond 2033 (or, more appropriately, a revised later end to the plan period, which will ensure strategic policies will cover at least 15 years). A further factor is the need to consider unmet needs of neighbouring authorities (NPPF paragraph 35). In this respect, we note in particular that Epping Forest District Council is at an advanced stage in the preparation of a Local Plan (at the time of writing it is currently being examined) which proposes to deliver 11,400 dwellings between 2011 and 2033 (518 dwellings per annum), against a requirement (based on the Standard Method) of 944 dwellings per annum. We are not aware of Brentwood Borough Council having objected to this approach, but neither is there any indication that the PSLP addresses any of this unmet need. The PSLP considers it appropriate to apply a 20% uplift to the identified housing target of 350 dwellings per annum, resulting in a proposed target of 456 dwellings per annum. The PSLP's rationale for this buffer is somewhat unclear: it states at Figure 4.1 that the buffer allows for an additional housing land supply to be maintained in the Borough throughout the plan period; but states at footnote 2 that the housing supply buffer serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, pending the outcome of the Government's 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance'. In any case, the uplift means that the proposed annual housing target in the PSLP is only fractionally above the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and does not provide any flexibility to ensure needs are met; does not ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period; and does not account for unmet need in neighbouring authorities. Further to our comments in respect of the plan period, and the PSLP's failure to ensure strategic policies are in place to cover at least 15 years from adoption, as an absolute minimum the PSLP must be amended to ensure an additional years' worth of housing need can be accommodated. Given likely timescales for adoption of the Local Plan, we suggest a plan period to 2035 should be treated as a minimum, and an additional two years' worth of development needs to that which the PSLP currently seeks to address should be planned for. Whilst we suggest 2035 should be the treated as the earliest end to the plan period, it should also be recognised that the authority is predominantly Green Belt. The NPPF requires this Local Plan to ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period. As such, we suggest the PSLP that even if the plan period is extended until 2035, policies should account for potential development needs beyond this period. The Council is required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at any point in the plan period. In terms of the five-year housing requirement, the NPPF (paragraph 73) confirms a 20% buffer should be applied to the initial calculation in the event the results of the Housing Delivery Test show that delivery has fallen below 85% of the requirement. The PPG confirms the requirement to apply such a buffer in such circumstances also applies where the Local Planning Authority are seeking to confirm their five-year housing land supply through a recently adopted Local Plan. The 2018 Housing Delivery Test measurement for Brentwood Borough shows that only 51% of the Borough's housing requirements were met over the last three years; well below the figure required to avoid a 20% buffer having to be applied. The Borough's most recent reported five-year housing land supply (Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2018 (November 2018) ('HLSS') is 4.1 years. However, this is predicated on a requirement which, when considered in relation to the latest guidance, understates need; and a supply which, again when considered in relation to latest guidance, overstates supply. As such, the actual housing land supply is considerably less. Looking at this in detail, the HLSS considers an annual need of 343 dwellings, resulting in a total requirement once the 20% has been applied of 2,058 dwellings. However, applying the latest guidance and the Standard Method, the Borough's housing requirement is 452 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% buffer, this results in a five year requirement of 2,712 dwellings. In terms of supply, the HLSS includes sites without detailed planning permission and
without evidence such sites will be delivered within five years. As per the NPPF, such
sites cannot be considerable deliverable for the purposes of the five-year housing land supply. Table 1 of the HLSS suggests that at least 1,042 dwellings in the reported supply did not have planning permission. Once these are removed from the supply calculation, the five-year supply comprises just 653 dwellings. It is unclear how many of the dwellings categorised as having extant planning permission are on major sites which only benefit from outline permission. Such sites would also have to be discounted. As such, the figure of 653 dwellings may overstate housing supply. A five-year supply of 653 dwellings compared to a requirement of 2,712 represents a 1.2-year housing land supply. The acute housing land supply shortage underlines the importance of allocating sites through the Local Plan which can deliver early in the plan period, and the need to avoid over reliance on large strategic sites which inevitably take a considerable time to bring forward. The housing trajectory provided as Appendix 1 to the PSLP projects that it will enable completion of 2,305 dwellings between 2019/20 and 2023/24 (or, to be precise, it projects 2,305.1 dwellings). Having regard to the Standard Method and the need to apply a 20% buffer to the housing requirement, the total five-year requirement for the Borough is 2,712 dwellings. Therefore, even before critical review of the supply, the PSLP will not provide a five-year supply of housing. Furthermore, and in respect of the projected supply, we are concerned to note that
Dunton Hills Garden Village is projected to delivery housing completions from 2022/23, i.e. falling within the first five years of the plan. Dunton Hills Garden Village is a proposed major strategic development, intended to provide 4,000 dwellings, 5.5 hectares of employment land, two new primary schools, secondary school, new village shopping centre, new transport infrastructure, and new community and health infrastructure. Delivery will require the coordination and input of multiple landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders. The site has yet to even be allocated. Once allocated, the PSLP proposes a masterplan and design guidance will be required to be prepared. Following this, an outline application will need to be prepared, submitted, and determined; followed by reserved matters. It will also be necessary to discharge all planning conditions and S106 obligations. All of this before development has even begun. The ability of larger sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin review (2018) and issues with their complexity have been ably set out in the Lichfield Study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematic due to a range of factors, including establishing the required infrastructure, and the timings of housing delivery associated with those requirements as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Litchfield's report confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5yrs for the planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for sites over 1,000 units. For the above reasons it is unrealistic to project that 100 homes will be completed at
Dunton Hills Garden Village as early as 2022/23. This does not in itself mean that
Dunton Hills Garden Village proposals cannot form part of a sound Local Plan, but it
does mean that additional smaller sites capable of providing homes in the early years of the plan period also need to be allocated in order to ensure the Local Plan is sound. The strategic sites are expected to deliver 1555 dwellings within 5yrs of adoption. Given the matters set out above, this is unrealistic and it would not be justified to rely on these sites to meet short term housing delivery. This emphasises the need to review sites such as ref. 078 to provide for more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery, to ensure the plan is Sound. Ingatestone is defined as a Category 2 Settlement. The Borough defines Category 2
settlements as larger villages in a rural setting, with high levels of accessibility and public transport provision, including rail services. These settlements provide a range of services and facilities to the immediate residential areas and nearby settlements. The PSLP states that appropriate urban extension and brownfield development
opportunities will be encouraged to meet local needs. In 2011, Ingatestone had a population of 4,812 (Census; 2011). It is the Borough's largest village, with a modest level of facilities, including a secondary school. Furthermore, Ingatestone Railway Station is located within the village, and provides frequent railway services to London Liverpool Street, Stratford (London), Chelmsford, Colchester and other surrounding settlements. The PSLP confirms that although Ingatestone has relatively good facilities, a modest level of development is envisaged, due to infrastructure constraints and a lack of suitable sites. As such, only two sites have been allocated for residential development in the PSLP -R21 and R22. This results in a total of 218 dwellings for Ingatestone over the plan period. Site 078 has previously been defined in the HELAA (2018) as suitable, available and achievable site for residential development. The PSLP in this case is flawed, as it doesn't appropriately consider Site 078 as a suitable site for residential development. It is considered that the PSLP fails to support the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The
failure to thoroughly consider Site 078 for residential development is unjustified. To ensure the Local Plan is sound, further suitable sites within Ingatestone should be
allocated to ensure the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the development of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary, on land,
which is currently allocated as Green Belt. The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north and south and the B1002 to the west. To the eastern boundary of the site are agricultural fields. A considerable amount of technical work has been undertaken in respect of land south of the B1002 and has previously been submitted to the Council through previous stages of the plan-making process. The technical work undertaken demonstrates that the site is sustainable, suitable, available and achievable and its development would help meet the Borough's housing need. Work undertaken, and previously provided is included in this representation for completeness: * Proposed Site Plan prepared by Grafik (Appendix B); * Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix C); * Landscape Advisory Plan prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix D); * Access Appraisal by Ardent Engineers (Appendix E). In previous representations submitted to the Council, we have commented specifically on the proposals for layout and landscaping, providing that the site would be allocated for residential development by the Council. A Feasibility Layout prepared by Graffik Architecture has previously been submitted to the Council and is included within this representation for completeness. The feasibility study demonstrates how 54 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The layout illustrates how the site could provide infill development to the already existing settlement of Ingatestone, without adversely harming the landscape character of the area or the character of Ingatestone itself. The Feasibility Layout also shows the potential proposals for landscaping on site. These proposals have been formed through careful consideration of the existing landscape character of Ingatestone and in line with the Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscape Advisory Plan which has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin. The report and plan also accompany this representation. As set out above, a Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscaping Advisory Plan has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin and accompanies this representation. It is proposed that there is to be retained and enhanced landscaping on site, specifically to the eastern and southern boundaries. This landscaping proposal takes into account the Grade II Listed Building - Rays - which is located beyond the eastern boundary of the site. By proposing dense planting at this boundary, it will ensure that the development proposal has no adverse effect on the nearby listed building. The Feasibility Layout also illustrates that planting will be retained at the western boundary of the site at the High Street, where access to the site is proposed. Furthermore, it is illustrated that the existing oak tree at the western part of the site will be retained to provide a substantial area of open space on the site. The Scoping Report suggests that these simple design controls and landscape mitigation measures, such as the protection of existing field boundary hedgerows, along with retaining an open space around the mature Oak Tree at the front of the site, would help to ensure that the proposed development would be as successful as possible in landscape and visual terms. The Scoping Report found that the visual influence of the site to surrounding locations was found to be limited due to the built up nature of the surrounding area, for example the ribbon development to the north and the settlement edge of Ingatestone to the south. The report states that development of the site should be considered as a logical area for infill development along the B1002. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004) requires SA/SEAs to inter alia set out the reasons for the selection of preferred alternatives, and the rejections of others, be made set out. In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance4 makes clear that the strategic
environmental assessment should outline the reasons the alternatives were selected,
the reasons the rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives. Sustainability Appraisal of the PSLP has been published: the Sustainability Appraisal of the Brentwood Local Plan January 2019 (the SA). Paragraph 5.5.31 of the SA confirms that Site 078 is listed as 1 of 5 omission sites in the HELAA as it is "deliverable or developable". The SA confirms that the two sites with the greatest potential for allocation are the adjacent "Parklands" Sites (Ref: 078 and Ref: 243), at the northern boundary of the village. The SA states that the accompanying Green Belt Review found that both sites contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt to a 'moderate' extent, however neither site is fully contained in the landscape. The SA concludes that the option of adding one or more omission sites was determined as "unreasonable", for the purposes of establishing reasonable spatial alternatives. No details are provided to explain in what way Site 078 is considered not to be fully contained in the landscape. Furthermore, as per Section 3 of this representation, the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report confirms that further planting can be provided on site at all boundaries, thus ensuring it is a contained site. The proposed planting would be effective in appropriately screening the proposed development and ensuring the village character of Ingatestone is retained. In short, the SA does not provide a justified reason for the rejection of the site. Turning to the specifics of the SA assessment of the site, these are set out in Table C of the SA. This provides a 'traffic light' assessment of sites' sustainability. Green indicates sites perform well; amber - poorly; red- particularly poorly; against specific criteria. Our first point in relation to the approach taken is that it is very simplistic - the assessment of site appears to be based purely on physical distance to various features / facilities / designations. For example, in relation to criteria 10 (Conservation Area), our site is considered to score 'poorly'. Part of Ingatestone High Street is defined as a Conservation Area, however site 078 is not within this designation and is located at least 400m from the defined Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development of the site would not unacceptably impact the Conservation Area. Furthermore, in relation to criteria 1 (Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located approximately 1 mile from AQMA BRW6 at the A12/Fryerning Lane. It is considered that the AQMA will not be adversely impacted by the site, given the distance between the two. In relation to criteria 8 (Primary School), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located 0.5 miles from both an infant and junior school. It is considered that the primary school provisions within Ingatestone are within walking distance to the site and the site should not be scored as 'poorly' in relation to this criterion. As per the reasons above, we therefore consider the SA's assessment to be flawed. A Green Belt Study and Assessment has been undertaken by Crestwood Environmental
Ltd as part of the Regulation 19 Consultation. The Assessment looks to assess specific green belt parcels in relation to the 4 purposes of the Green Belt. These are: Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging in to one another; Purpose 3 - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Following this assessment, the parcel is given an overall assessment rating. The ratings are; Low; Low-Moderate; Moderate; Moderate - High; High. Site 078 is within Parcel 9A of the Green Belt Assessment. Parcel 9a includes land to the northeast of Ingatestone. The parcel size is 41.94ha. Purpose 1: Parcel 9a is defined by the Council as 'Partly Contained', as it abuts a large built up area. The assessment states that the 'Partly Contained' sites have weak/degraded/unclear boundaries. This is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. Site 078 has clear natural boundaries at the east and to the south. Furthermore, as detailed at Section 3, further planting is proposed at the site in order to contain the proposed development. Purpose 2: Parcel 9a has been assessed as an 'Important Countryside Gap'. The Assessment
states that the parcel forms either a large proportion of countryside gaps between towns or the development of the site would result in the physical narrowing of the gap and potential visual coalescence. As per the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report, it is considered that the site would result in a coherent infill development between two existing areas of developed land. The Scoping Report also confirms that the proposed development of the site wold not result in the coalescence of Margaretting and Ingatestone. Purpose 3: Parcel 9a has been assessed as 'Functional Countryside' (FC). This again, is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. As such, we do not agree that Site 078 can be defined as Functional Countryside. The site is between existing development and can therefore be considered as an infill site. Purpose 4: The assessment states that Parcel 9A has a 'limited relationship with Historic Town'. We agree with this assessment. Overall Brentwood Borough Council have assessed Parcel 9a, as having a 'moderate' contribution to the 4 purposes of Green Belt. The above review of Parcel 9a recognises that this assessment is not necessarily reflective of the qualities of every site within the parcel. In respect of this, we wish to highlight the findings of the Inspector in the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, which we consider helpful in the consideration of the PSLP. Following the Stage 1 and 2 hearing sessions at Welwyn Hatfield, the Inspector provided a note to the Council in December 2017 on its approach to review of the Green Belt (EX39 of the Welywn Hatfield Local Plan Examination). Within this note, the Inspector stated: "The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of
Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks ... I pointed
out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas." "Additionally, the phase 2 Green Belt Review, which did look at a finer grain of sites,
does not appear to have examined all of the potential development sites adjacent to
the urban areas..." "The actual development strategy finally arrived at is a matter for the Council... However, if that strategy fails to meet the FOAHN and assuming that all realistic development opportunities outside of the Green Belt have been put forward in the plan, then it is effectively saying that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying a further release of additional land from the Green Belt and that presumably means for as long as current national green belt policy and its interpretation prevails. That may be the case but unless all of the Green Belt has been forensically analysed in some detail then it is difficult to prove." Having regard to all of the above, key issues to consider include: * Whether all potential sites' impact on the Green Belt has been assessed; * Whether such assessment was undertaken at a sufficiently fine grain to properly consider individual sites' impact on the Green Belt.In respect of the PSLP, it is clear that not all potential development sites were subject to a sufficiently detailed analysis which could enable BBC to justifiably conclude it has identified a reasonable strategy to meet its housing needs, particularly where the plan is not meeting those needs in full. At the very least, there was one site that was not properly assessed: Land to the South of the B1002, Ingatestone. The Council's own evidence base states that Site 078 is suitable, available and achievable for residential development. Development of the site is supported by technical evidence that confirms its suitability, including in relation to the lack of harm to the landscape and Green Belt. The reasons given for the rejection of the Site are based on erroneous conclusions in the evidence base and should be re-examined. The rejection of Site 078 is unjustified, and overlooks an opportunity to correct other soundness deficiencies in respect of the Local Plan, including in relation to the overall quantum of housing proposed in Ingatestone. The allocation of Site 078 for development will assist in curing defects in respect of the
Local Plan, enabling it to be a sound plan.

This representation on the Brentwood Borough Proposed Submission Local Plan
(February 2019) (PSLP) is submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Barnoaks
Management Ltd. The representation is made in relation to Land south of the B1002,
Ingatestone. The site is referenced as 078 in the Council's plan making process. A location plan showing the site is provided at Appendix A of this representation. The site has previously been submitted through the Council's Call for Sites (2011) and
the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (Ref: GO20). In the
SHLAA, the site was defined as a 'greenfield parcel with potential'. More recently, the site was submitted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (2018) (Ref: 078). The site was defined in the HELAA as a suitable, achievable and available site for residential development, which could come forward within 1 - 5 years. Representations were also submitted to Brentwood Borough Council through the Regulation 18 Consultation (2018). The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the delivery of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary of Ingatestone, on land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt. Currently, the site is not proposed to be allocated for residential development. The
rejection of the site for allocation is considered unjustified. The allocation of land south of the B1002, Ingatestone, for residential development would represent a sustainable and deliverable proposal to help meet housing needs over the coming plan period. The proposed plan period runs until 2033. Assuming - optimistically - adoption in 2019, this means that the Local Plan will address development needs for a maximum of 14 years. The NPPF (Paragraph 22) is clear that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from the date of adoption. This deficiency in the PSLP is of particular relevance given that the Borough is predominately Green Belt, and failure to ensure that development needs are planned
for over a sufficient period of time would likely result in an early review of the Green Belt being required - contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 136); and undermining one of the two essential characteristics of the Green Belt; its permanence (NPPF, Paragraph 133). At paragraph 4.13 of the PSLP, it states that the Borough's housing requirement it plans for is 350 dwellings per annum. At paragraph 4.12 it states that this figure has been calculated using the Standard Method (as per the NPPF and accompanying PPG). However, this does not appear to be the case having regard to updated guidance. The PPG now confirms that 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method. The relevant subnational population projections indicate an average annual increase of 293.2 households in the Borough between 2019 and 2029. The latest (2017) ratio of median house price to median gross annual workplace-based earnings for the Borough published by the ONS is 11.23. Once the Standard Method is applied using these figures this result in a requirement of 452 dwellings per annum, not 350. The Local Plan is required to meet this need as a minimum (NPPF paragraph 35); and with sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (NPPF paragraph 11). In addition, the Local Plan is required to ensure that the revised Green Belt can endure beyond the plan period (NPPF paragraph 136), i.e. in amending the Green Belt boundary, the Local Plan should account for development needs beyond 2033 (or, more appropriately, a revised later end to the plan period, which will ensure strategic policies will cover at least 15 years). A further factor is the need to consider unmet needs of neighbouring authorities (NPPF paragraph 35). In this respect, we note in particular that Epping Forest District Council is at an advanced stage in the preparation of a Local Plan (at the time of writing it is currently being examined) which proposes to deliver 11,400 dwellings between 2011 and 2033 (518 dwellings per annum), against a requirement (based on the Standard Method) of 944 dwellings per annum. We are not aware of Brentwood Borough Council having objected to this approach, but neither is there any indication that the PSLP addresses any of this unmet need. The PSLP considers it appropriate to apply a 20% uplift to the identified housing target of 350 dwellings per annum, resulting in a proposed target of 456 dwellings per annum. The PSLP's rationale for this buffer is somewhat unclear: it states at Figure 4.1 that the buffer allows for an additional housing land supply to be maintained in the Borough throughout the plan period; but states at footnote 2 that the housing supply buffer serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, pending the outcome of the Government's 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance'. In any case, the uplift means that the proposed annual housing target in the PSLP is only fractionally above the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and does not provide any flexibility to ensure needs are met; does not ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period; and does not account for unmet need in neighbouring authorities. Further to our comments in respect of the plan period, and the PSLP's failure to ensure strategic policies are in place to cover at least 15 years from adoption, as an absolute minimum the PSLP must be amended to ensure an additional years' worth of housing need can be accommodated. Given likely timescales for adoption of the Local Plan, we suggest a plan period to 2035 should be treated as a minimum, and an additional two years' worth of development needs to that which the PSLP currently seeks to address should be planned for. Whilst we suggest 2035 should be the treated as the earliest end to the plan period, it should also be recognised that the authority is predominantly Green Belt. The NPPF requires this Local Plan to ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period. As such, we suggest the PSLP that even if the plan period is extended until 2035, policies should account for potential development needs beyond this period. The Council is required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at any point in the plan period. In terms of the five-year housing requirement, the NPPF (paragraph 73) confirms a 20% buffer should be applied to the initial calculation in the event the results of the Housing Delivery Test show that delivery has fallen below 85% of the requirement. The PPG confirms the requirement to apply such a buffer in such circumstances also applies where the Local Planning Authority are seeking to confirm their five-year housing land supply through a recently adopted Local Plan. The 2018 Housing Delivery Test measurement for Brentwood Borough shows that only 51% of the Borough's housing requirements were met over the last three years; well below the figure required to avoid a 20% buffer having to be applied. The Borough's most recent reported five-year housing land supply (Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2018 (November 2018) ('HLSS') is 4.1 years. However, this is predicated on a requirement which, when considered in relation to the latest guidance, understates need; and a supply which, again when considered in relation to latest guidance, overstates supply. As such, the actual housing land supply is considerably less. Looking at this in detail, the HLSS considers an annual need of 343 dwellings, resulting in a total requirement once the 20% has been applied of 2,058 dwellings. However, applying the latest guidance and the Standard Method, the Borough's housing requirement is 452 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% buffer, this results in a five year requirement of 2,712 dwellings. In terms of supply, the HLSS includes sites without detailed planning permission and
without evidence such sites will be delivered within five years. As per the NPPF, such
sites cannot be considerable deliverable for the purposes of the five-year housing land supply. Table 1 of the HLSS suggests that at least 1,042 dwellings in the reported supply did not have planning permission. Once these are removed from the supply calculation, the five-year supply comprises just 653 dwellings. It is unclear how many of the dwellings categorised as having extant planning permission are on major sites which only benefit from outline permission. Such sites would also have to be discounted. As such, the figure of 653 dwellings may overstate housing supply. A five-year supply of 653 dwellings compared to a requirement of 2,712 represents a 1.2-year housing land supply. The acute housing land supply shortage underlines the importance of allocating sites through the Local Plan which can deliver early in the plan period, and the need to avoid over reliance on large strategic sites which inevitably take a considerable time to bring forward. The housing trajectory provided as Appendix 1 to the PSLP projects that it will enable completion of 2,305 dwellings between 2019/20 and 2023/24 (or, to be precise, it projects 2,305.1 dwellings). Having regard to the Standard Method and the need to apply a 20% buffer to the housing requirement, the total five-year requirement for the Borough is 2,712 dwellings. Therefore, even before critical review of the supply, the PSLP will not provide a five-year supply of housing. Furthermore, and in respect of the projected supply, we are concerned to note that
Dunton Hills Garden Village is projected to delivery housing completions from 2022/23, i.e. falling within the first five years of the plan. Dunton Hills Garden Village is a proposed major strategic development, intended to provide 4,000 dwellings, 5.5 hectares of employment land, two new primary schools, secondary school, new village shopping centre, new transport infrastructure, and new community and health infrastructure. Delivery will require the coordination and input of multiple landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders. The site has yet to even be allocated. Once allocated, the PSLP proposes a masterplan and design guidance will be required to be prepared. Following this, an outline application will need to be prepared, submitted, and determined; followed by reserved matters. It will also be necessary to discharge all planning conditions and S106 obligations. All of this before development has even begun. The ability of larger sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin review (2018) and issues with their complexity have been ably set out in the Lichfield Study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematic due to a range of factors, including establishing the required infrastructure, and the timings of housing delivery associated with those requirements as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Litchfield's report confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5yrs for the planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for sites over 1,000 units. For the above reasons it is unrealistic to project that 100 homes will be completed at
Dunton Hills Garden Village as early as 2022/23. This does not in itself mean that
Dunton Hills Garden Village proposals cannot form part of a sound Local Plan, but it
does mean that additional smaller sites capable of providing homes in the early years of the plan period also need to be allocated in order to ensure the Local Plan is sound. The strategic sites are expected to deliver 1555 dwellings within 5yrs of adoption. Given the matters set out above, this is unrealistic and it would not be justified to rely on these sites to meet short term housing delivery. This emphasises the need to review sites such as ref. 078 to provide for more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery, to ensure the plan is Sound. Ingatestone is defined as a Category 2 Settlement. The Borough defines Category 2
settlements as larger villages in a rural setting, with high levels of accessibility and public transport provision, including rail services. These settlements provide a range of services and facilities to the immediate residential areas and nearby settlements. The PSLP states that appropriate urban extension and brownfield development
opportunities will be encouraged to meet local needs. In 2011, Ingatestone had a population of 4,812 (Census; 2011). It is the Borough's largest village, with a modest level of facilities, including a secondary school. Furthermore, Ingatestone Railway Station is located within the village, and provides frequent railway services to London Liverpool Street, Stratford (London), Chelmsford, Colchester and other surrounding settlements. The PSLP confirms that although Ingatestone has relatively good facilities, a modest level of development is envisaged, due to infrastructure constraints and a lack of suitable sites. As such, only two sites have been allocated for residential development in the PSLP -R21 and R22. This results in a total of 218 dwellings for Ingatestone over the plan period. Site 078 has previously been defined in the HELAA (2018) as suitable, available and achievable site for residential development. The PSLP in this case is flawed, as it doesn't appropriately consider Site 078 as a suitable site for residential development. It is considered that the PSLP fails to support the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The
failure to thoroughly consider Site 078 for residential development is unjustified. To ensure the Local Plan is sound, further suitable sites within Ingatestone should be
allocated to ensure the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the development of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary, on land,
which is currently allocated as Green Belt. The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north and south and the B1002 to the west. To the eastern boundary of the site are agricultural fields. A considerable amount of technical work has been undertaken in respect of land south of the B1002 and has previously been submitted to the Council through previous stages of the plan-making process. The technical work undertaken demonstrates that the site is sustainable, suitable, available and achievable and its development would help meet the Borough's housing need. Work undertaken, and previously provided is included in this representation for completeness: * Proposed Site Plan prepared by Grafik (Appendix B); * Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix C); * Landscape Advisory Plan prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix D); * Access Appraisal by Ardent Engineers (Appendix E). In previous representations submitted to the Council, we have commented specifically on the proposals for layout and landscaping, providing that the site would be allocated for residential development by the Council. A Feasibility Layout prepared by Graffik Architecture has previously been submitted to the Council and is included within this representation for completeness. The feasibility study demonstrates how 54 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The layout illustrates how the site could provide infill development to the already existing settlement of Ingatestone, without adversely harming the landscape character of the area or the character of Ingatestone itself. The Feasibility Layout also shows the potential proposals for landscaping on site. These proposals have been formed through careful consideration of the existing landscape character of Ingatestone and in line with the Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscape Advisory Plan which has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin. The report and plan also accompany this representation. As set out above, a Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscaping Advisory Plan has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin and accompanies this representation. It is proposed that there is to be retained and enhanced landscaping on site, specifically to the eastern and southern boundaries. This landscaping proposal takes into account the Grade II Listed Building - Rays - which is located beyond the eastern boundary of the site. By proposing dense planting at this boundary, it will ensure that the development proposal has no adverse effect on the nearby listed building. The Feasibility Layout also illustrates that planting will be retained at the western boundary of the site at the High Street, where access to the site is proposed. Furthermore, it is illustrated that the existing oak tree at the western part of the site will be retained to provide a substantial area of open space on the site. The Scoping Report suggests that these simple design controls and landscape mitigation measures, such as the protection of existing field boundary hedgerows, along with retaining an open space around the mature Oak Tree at the front of the site, would help to ensure that the proposed development would be as successful as possible in landscape and visual terms. The Scoping Report found that the visual influence of the site to surrounding locations was found to be limited due to the built up nature of the surrounding area, for example the ribbon development to the north and the settlement edge of Ingatestone to the south. The report states that development of the site should be considered as a logical area for infill development along the B1002. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004) requires SA/SEAs to inter alia set out the reasons for the selection of preferred alternatives, and the rejections of others, be made set out. In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance4 makes clear that the strategic
environmental assessment should outline the reasons the alternatives were selected,
the reasons the rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives. Sustainability Appraisal of the PSLP has been published: the Sustainability Appraisal of the Brentwood Local Plan January 2019 (the SA). Paragraph 5.5.31 of the SA confirms that Site 078 is listed as 1 of 5 omission sites in the HELAA as it is "deliverable or developable". The SA confirms that the two sites with the greatest potential for allocation are the adjacent "Parklands" Sites (Ref: 078 and Ref: 243), at the northern boundary of the village. The SA states that the accompanying Green Belt Review found that both sites contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt to a 'moderate' extent, however neither site is fully contained in the landscape. The SA concludes that the option of adding one or more omission sites was determined as "unreasonable", for the purposes of establishing reasonable spatial alternatives. No details are provided to explain in what way Site 078 is considered not to be fully contained in the landscape. Furthermore, as per Section 3 of this representation, the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report confirms that further planting can be provided on site at all boundaries, thus ensuring it is a contained site. The proposed planting would be effective in appropriately screening the proposed development and ensuring the village character of Ingatestone is retained. In short, the SA does not provide a justified reason for the rejection of the site. Turning to the specifics of the SA assessment of the site, these are set out in Table C of the SA. This provides a 'traffic light' assessment of sites' sustainability. Green indicates sites perform well; amber - poorly; red- particularly poorly; against specific criteria. Our first point in relation to the approach taken is that it is very simplistic - the assessment of site appears to be based purely on physical distance to various features / facilities / designations. For example, in relation to criteria 10 (Conservation Area), our site is considered to score 'poorly'. Part of Ingatestone High Street is defined as a Conservation Area, however site 078 is not within this designation and is located at least 400m from the defined Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development of the site would not unacceptably impact the Conservation Area. Furthermore, in relation to criteria 1 (Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located approximately 1 mile from AQMA BRW6 at the A12/Fryerning Lane. It is considered that the AQMA will not be adversely impacted by the site, given the distance between the two. In relation to criteria 8 (Primary School), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located 0.5 miles from both an infant and junior school. It is considered that the primary school provisions within Ingatestone are within walking distance to the site and the site should not be scored as 'poorly' in relation to this criterion. As per the reasons above, we therefore consider the SA's assessment to be flawed. A Green Belt Study and Assessment has been undertaken by Crestwood Environmental
Ltd as part of the Regulation 19 Consultation. The Assessment looks to assess specific green belt parcels in relation to the 4 purposes of the Green Belt. These are: Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging in to one another; Purpose 3 - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Following this assessment, the parcel is given an overall assessment rating. The ratings are; Low; Low-Moderate; Moderate; Moderate - High; High. Site 078 is within Parcel 9A of the Green Belt Assessment. Parcel 9a includes land to the northeast of Ingatestone. The parcel size is 41.94ha. Purpose 1: Parcel 9a is defined by the Council as 'Partly Contained', as it abuts a large built up area. The assessment states that the 'Partly Contained' sites have weak/degraded/unclear boundaries. This is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. Site 078 has clear natural boundaries at the east and to the south. Furthermore, as detailed at Section 3, further planting is proposed at the site in order to contain the proposed development. Purpose 2: Parcel 9a has been assessed as an 'Important Countryside Gap'. The Assessment
states that the parcel forms either a large proportion of countryside gaps between towns or the development of the site would result in the physical narrowing of the gap and potential visual coalescence. As per the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report, it is considered that the site would result in a coherent infill development between two existing areas of developed land. The Scoping Report also confirms that the proposed development of the site wold not result in the coalescence of Margaretting and Ingatestone. Purpose 3: Parcel 9a has been assessed as 'Functional Countryside' (FC). This again, is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. As such, we do not agree that Site 078 can be defined as Functional Countryside. The site is between existing development and can therefore be considered as an infill site. Purpose 4: The assessment states that Parcel 9A has a 'limited relationship with Historic Town'. We agree with this assessment. Overall Brentwood Borough Council have assessed Parcel 9a, as having a 'moderate' contribution to the 4 purposes of Green Belt. The above review of Parcel 9a recognises that this assessment is not necessarily reflective of the qualities of every site within the parcel. In respect of this, we wish to highlight the findings of the Inspector in the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, which we consider helpful in the consideration of the PSLP. Following the Stage 1 and 2 hearing sessions at Welwyn Hatfield, the Inspector provided a note to the Council in December 2017 on its approach to review of the Green Belt (EX39 of the Welywn Hatfield Local Plan Examination). Within this note, the Inspector stated: "The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of
Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks ... I pointed
out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas." "Additionally, the phase 2 Green Belt Review, which did look at a finer grain of sites,
does not appear to have examined all of the potential development sites adjacent to
the urban areas..." "The actual development strategy finally arrived at is a matter for the Council... However, if that strategy fails to meet the FOAHN and assuming that all realistic development opportunities outside of the Green Belt have been put forward in the plan, then it is effectively saying that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying a further release of additional land from the Green Belt and that presumably means for as long as current national green belt policy and its interpretation prevails. That may be the case but unless all of the Green Belt has been forensically analysed in some detail then it is difficult to prove." Having regard to all of the above, key issues to consider include: * Whether all potential sites' impact on the Green Belt has been assessed; * Whether such assessment was undertaken at a sufficiently fine grain to properly consider individual sites' impact on the Green Belt.In respect of the PSLP, it is clear that not all potential development sites were subject to a sufficiently detailed analysis which could enable BBC to justifiably conclude it has identified a reasonable strategy to meet its housing needs, particularly where the plan is not meeting those needs in full. At the very least, there was one site that was not properly assessed: Land to the South of the B1002, Ingatestone. The Council's own evidence base states that Site 078 is suitable, available and achievable for residential development. Development of the site is supported by technical evidence that confirms its suitability, including in relation to the lack of harm to the landscape and Green Belt. The reasons given for the rejection of the Site are based on erroneous conclusions in the evidence base and should be re-examined. The rejection of Site 078 is unjustified, and overlooks an opportunity to correct other soundness deficiencies in respect of the Local Plan, including in relation to the overall quantum of housing proposed in Ingatestone. The allocation of Site 078 for development will assist in curing defects in respect of the
Local Plan, enabling it to be a sound plan.

This representation on the Brentwood Borough Proposed Submission Local Plan
(February 2019) (PSLP) is submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Barnoaks
Management Ltd. The representation is made in relation to Land south of the B1002,
Ingatestone. The site is referenced as 078 in the Council's plan making process. A location plan showing the site is provided at Appendix A of this representation. The site has previously been submitted through the Council's Call for Sites (2011) and
the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (Ref: GO20). In the
SHLAA, the site was defined as a 'greenfield parcel with potential'. More recently, the site was submitted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (2018) (Ref: 078). The site was defined in the HELAA as a suitable, achievable and available site for residential development, which could come forward within 1 - 5 years. Representations were also submitted to Brentwood Borough Council through the Regulation 18 Consultation (2018). The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the delivery of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary of Ingatestone, on land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt. Currently, the site is not proposed to be allocated for residential development. The
rejection of the site for allocation is considered unjustified. The allocation of land south of the B1002, Ingatestone, for residential development would represent a sustainable and deliverable proposal to help meet housing needs over the coming plan period. The proposed plan period runs until 2033. Assuming - optimistically - adoption in 2019, this means that the Local Plan will address development needs for a maximum of 14 years. The NPPF (Paragraph 22) is clear that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from the date of adoption. This deficiency in the PSLP is of particular relevance given that the Borough is predominately Green Belt, and failure to ensure that development needs are planned
for over a sufficient period of time would likely result in an early review of the Green Belt being required - contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 136); and undermining one of the two essential characteristics of the Green Belt; its permanence (NPPF, Paragraph 133). At paragraph 4.13 of the PSLP, it states that the Borough's housing requirement it plans for is 350 dwellings per annum. At paragraph 4.12 it states that this figure has been calculated using the Standard Method (as per the NPPF and accompanying PPG). However, this does not appear to be the case having regard to updated guidance. The PPG now confirms that 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method. The relevant subnational population projections indicate an average annual increase of 293.2 households in the Borough between 2019 and 2029. The latest (2017) ratio of median house price to median gross annual workplace-based earnings for the Borough published by the ONS is 11.23. Once the Standard Method is applied using these figures this result in a requirement of 452 dwellings per annum, not 350. The Local Plan is required to meet this need as a minimum (NPPF paragraph 35); and with sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (NPPF paragraph 11). In addition, the Local Plan is required to ensure that the revised Green Belt can endure beyond the plan period (NPPF paragraph 136), i.e. in amending the Green Belt boundary, the Local Plan should account for development needs beyond 2033 (or, more appropriately, a revised later end to the plan period, which will ensure strategic policies will cover at least 15 years). A further factor is the need to consider unmet needs of neighbouring authorities (NPPF paragraph 35). In this respect, we note in particular that Epping Forest District Council is at an advanced stage in the preparation of a Local Plan (at the time of writing it is currently being examined) which proposes to deliver 11,400 dwellings between 2011 and 2033 (518 dwellings per annum), against a requirement (based on the Standard Method) of 944 dwellings per annum. We are not aware of Brentwood Borough Council having objected to this approach, but neither is there any indication that the PSLP addresses any of this unmet need. The PSLP considers it appropriate to apply a 20% uplift to the identified housing target of 350 dwellings per annum, resulting in a proposed target of 456 dwellings per annum. The PSLP's rationale for this buffer is somewhat unclear: it states at Figure 4.1 that the buffer allows for an additional housing land supply to be maintained in the Borough throughout the plan period; but states at footnote 2 that the housing supply buffer serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, pending the outcome of the Government's 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance'. In any case, the uplift means that the proposed annual housing target in the PSLP is only fractionally above the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and does not provide any flexibility to ensure needs are met; does not ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period; and does not account for unmet need in neighbouring authorities. Further to our comments in respect of the plan period, and the PSLP's failure to ensure strategic policies are in place to cover at least 15 years from adoption, as an absolute minimum the PSLP must be amended to ensure an additional years' worth of housing need can be accommodated. Given likely timescales for adoption of the Local Plan, we suggest a plan period to 2035 should be treated as a minimum, and an additional two years' worth of development needs to that which the PSLP currently seeks to address should be planned for. Whilst we suggest 2035 should be the treated as the earliest end to the plan period, it should also be recognised that the authority is predominantly Green Belt. The NPPF requires this Local Plan to ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period. As such, we suggest the PSLP that even if the plan period is extended until 2035, policies should account for potential development needs beyond this period. The Council is required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at any point in the plan period. In terms of the five-year housing requirement, the NPPF (paragraph 73) confirms a 20% buffer should be applied to the initial calculation in the event the results of the Housing Delivery Test show that delivery has fallen below 85% of the requirement. The PPG confirms the requirement to apply such a buffer in such circumstances also applies where the Local Planning Authority are seeking to confirm their five-year housing land supply through a recently adopted Local Plan. The 2018 Housing Delivery Test measurement for Brentwood Borough shows that only 51% of the Borough's housing requirements were met over the last three years; well below the figure required to avoid a 20% buffer having to be applied. The Borough's most recent reported five-year housing land supply (Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2018 (November 2018) ('HLSS') is 4.1 years. However, this is predicated on a requirement which, when considered in relation to the latest guidance, understates need; and a supply which, again when considered in relation to latest guidance, overstates supply. As such, the actual housing land supply is considerably less. Looking at this in detail, the HLSS considers an annual need of 343 dwellings, resulting in a total requirement once the 20% has been applied of 2,058 dwellings. However, applying the latest guidance and the Standard Method, the Borough's housing requirement is 452 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% buffer, this results in a five year requirement of 2,712 dwellings. In terms of supply, the HLSS includes sites without detailed planning permission and
without evidence such sites will be delivered within five years. As per the NPPF, such
sites cannot be considerable deliverable for the purposes of the five-year housing land supply. Table 1 of the HLSS suggests that at least 1,042 dwellings in the reported supply did not have planning permission. Once these are removed from the supply calculation, the five-year supply comprises just 653 dwellings. It is unclear how many of the dwellings categorised as having extant planning permission are on major sites which only benefit from outline permission. Such sites would also have to be discounted. As such, the figure of 653 dwellings may overstate housing supply. A five-year supply of 653 dwellings compared to a requirement of 2,712 represents a 1.2-year housing land supply. The acute housing land supply shortage underlines the importance of allocating sites through the Local Plan which can deliver early in the plan period, and the need to avoid over reliance on large strategic sites which inevitably take a considerable time to bring forward. The housing trajectory provided as Appendix 1 to the PSLP projects that it will enable completion of 2,305 dwellings between 2019/20 and 2023/24 (or, to be precise, it projects 2,305.1 dwellings). Having regard to the Standard Method and the need to apply a 20% buffer to the housing requirement, the total five-year requirement for the Borough is 2,712 dwellings. Therefore, even before critical review of the supply, the PSLP will not provide a five-year supply of housing. Furthermore, and in respect of the projected supply, we are concerned to note that
Dunton Hills Garden Village is projected to delivery housing completions from 2022/23, i.e. falling within the first five years of the plan. Dunton Hills Garden Village is a proposed major strategic development, intended to provide 4,000 dwellings, 5.5 hectares of employment land, two new primary schools, secondary school, new village shopping centre, new transport infrastructure, and new community and health infrastructure. Delivery will require the coordination and input of multiple landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders. The site has yet to even be allocated. Once allocated, the PSLP proposes a masterplan and design guidance will be required to be prepared. Following this, an outline application will need to be prepared, submitted, and determined; followed by reserved matters. It will also be necessary to discharge all planning conditions and S106 obligations. All of this before development has even begun. The ability of larger sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin review (2018) and issues with their complexity have been ably set out in the Lichfield Study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematic due to a range of factors, including establishing the required infrastructure, and the timings of housing delivery associated with those requirements as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Litchfield's report confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5yrs for the planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for sites over 1,000 units. For the above reasons it is unrealistic to project that 100 homes will be completed at
Dunton Hills Garden Village as early as 2022/23. This does not in itself mean that
Dunton Hills Garden Village proposals cannot form part of a sound Local Plan, but it
does mean that additional smaller sites capable of providing homes in the early years of the plan period also need to be allocated in order to ensure the Local Plan is sound. The strategic sites are expected to deliver 1555 dwellings within 5yrs of adoption. Given the matters set out above, this is unrealistic and it would not be justified to rely on these sites to meet short term housing delivery. This emphasises the need to review sites such as ref. 078 to provide for more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery, to ensure the plan is Sound. Ingatestone is defined as a Category 2 Settlement. The Borough defines Category 2
settlements as larger villages in a rural setting, with high levels of accessibility and public transport provision, including rail services. These settlements provide a range of services and facilities to the immediate residential areas and nearby settlements. The PSLP states that appropriate urban extension and brownfield development
opportunities will be encouraged to meet local needs. In 2011, Ingatestone had a population of 4,812 (Census; 2011). It is the Borough's largest village, with a modest level of facilities, including a secondary school. Furthermore, Ingatestone Railway Station is located within the village, and provides frequent railway services to London Liverpool Street, Stratford (London), Chelmsford, Colchester and other surrounding settlements. The PSLP confirms that although Ingatestone has relatively good facilities, a modest level of development is envisaged, due to infrastructure constraints and a lack of suitable sites. As such, only two sites have been allocated for residential development in the PSLP -R21 and R22. This results in a total of 218 dwellings for Ingatestone over the plan period. Site 078 has previously been defined in the HELAA (2018) as suitable, available and achievable site for residential development. The PSLP in this case is flawed, as it doesn't appropriately consider Site 078 as a suitable site for residential development. It is considered that the PSLP fails to support the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The
failure to thoroughly consider Site 078 for residential development is unjustified. To ensure the Local Plan is sound, further suitable sites within Ingatestone should be
allocated to ensure the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the development of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary, on land,
which is currently allocated as Green Belt. The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north and south and the B1002 to the west. To the eastern boundary of the site are agricultural fields. A considerable amount of technical work has been undertaken in respect of land south of the B1002 and has previously been submitted to the Council through previous stages of the plan-making process. The technical work undertaken demonstrates that the site is sustainable, suitable, available and achievable and its development would help meet the Borough's housing need. Work undertaken, and previously provided is included in this representation for completeness: * Proposed Site Plan prepared by Grafik (Appendix B); * Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix C); * Landscape Advisory Plan prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix D); * Access Appraisal by Ardent Engineers (Appendix E). In previous representations submitted to the Council, we have commented specifically on the proposals for layout and landscaping, providing that the site would be allocated for residential development by the Council. A Feasibility Layout prepared by Graffik Architecture has previously been submitted to the Council and is included within this representation for completeness. The feasibility study demonstrates how 54 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The layout illustrates how the site could provide infill development to the already existing settlement of Ingatestone, without adversely harming the landscape character of the area or the character of Ingatestone itself. The Feasibility Layout also shows the potential proposals for landscaping on site. These proposals have been formed through careful consideration of the existing landscape character of Ingatestone and in line with the Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscape Advisory Plan which has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin. The report and plan also accompany this representation. As set out above, a Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscaping Advisory Plan has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin and accompanies this representation. It is proposed that there is to be retained and enhanced landscaping on site, specifically to the eastern and southern boundaries. This landscaping proposal takes into account the Grade II Listed Building - Rays - which is located beyond the eastern boundary of the site. By proposing dense planting at this boundary, it will ensure that the development proposal has no adverse effect on the nearby listed building. The Feasibility Layout also illustrates that planting will be retained at the western boundary of the site at the High Street, where access to the site is proposed. Furthermore, it is illustrated that the existing oak tree at the western part of the site will be retained to provide a substantial area of open space on the site. The Scoping Report suggests that these simple design controls and landscape mitigation measures, such as the protection of existing field boundary hedgerows, along with retaining an open space around the mature Oak Tree at the front of the site, would help to ensure that the proposed development would be as successful as possible in landscape and visual terms. The Scoping Report found that the visual influence of the site to surrounding locations was found to be limited due to the built up nature of the surrounding area, for example the ribbon development to the north and the settlement edge of Ingatestone to the south. The report states that development of the site should be considered as a logical area for infill development along the B1002. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004) requires SA/SEAs to inter alia set out the reasons for the selection of preferred alternatives, and the rejections of others, be made set out. In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance4 makes clear that the strategic
environmental assessment should outline the reasons the alternatives were selected,
the reasons the rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives. Sustainability Appraisal of the PSLP has been published: the Sustainability Appraisal of the Brentwood Local Plan January 2019 (the SA). Paragraph 5.5.31 of the SA confirms that Site 078 is listed as 1 of 5 omission sites in the HELAA as it is "deliverable or developable". The SA confirms that the two sites with the greatest potential for allocation are the adjacent "Parklands" Sites (Ref: 078 and Ref: 243), at the northern boundary of the village. The SA states that the accompanying Green Belt Review found that both sites contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt to a 'moderate' extent, however neither site is fully contained in the landscape. The SA concludes that the option of adding one or more omission sites was determined as "unreasonable", for the purposes of establishing reasonable spatial alternatives. No details are provided to explain in what way Site 078 is considered not to be fully contained in the landscape. Furthermore, as per Section 3 of this representation, the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report confirms that further planting can be provided on site at all boundaries, thus ensuring it is a contained site. The proposed planting would be effective in appropriately screening the proposed development and ensuring the village character of Ingatestone is retained. In short, the SA does not provide a justified reason for the rejection of the site. Turning to the specifics of the SA assessment of the site, these are set out in Table C of the SA. This provides a 'traffic light' assessment of sites' sustainability. Green indicates sites perform well; amber - poorly; red- particularly poorly; against specific criteria. Our first point in relation to the approach taken is that it is very simplistic - the assessment of site appears to be based purely on physical distance to various features / facilities / designations. For example, in relation to criteria 10 (Conservation Area), our site is considered to score 'poorly'. Part of Ingatestone High Street is defined as a Conservation Area, however site 078 is not within this designation and is located at least 400m from the defined Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development of the site would not unacceptably impact the Conservation Area. Furthermore, in relation to criteria 1 (Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located approximately 1 mile from AQMA BRW6 at the A12/Fryerning Lane. It is considered that the AQMA will not be adversely impacted by the site, given the distance between the two. In relation to criteria 8 (Primary School), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located 0.5 miles from both an infant and junior school. It is considered that the primary school provisions within Ingatestone are within walking distance to the site and the site should not be scored as 'poorly' in relation to this criterion. As per the reasons above, we therefore consider the SA's assessment to be flawed. A Green Belt Study and Assessment has been undertaken by Crestwood Environmental
Ltd as part of the Regulation 19 Consultation. The Assessment looks to assess specific green belt parcels in relation to the 4 purposes of the Green Belt. These are: Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging in to one another; Purpose 3 - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Following this assessment, the parcel is given an overall assessment rating. The ratings are; Low; Low-Moderate; Moderate; Moderate - High; High. Site 078 is within Parcel 9A of the Green Belt Assessment. Parcel 9a includes land to the northeast of Ingatestone. The parcel size is 41.94ha. Purpose 1: Parcel 9a is defined by the Council as 'Partly Contained', as it abuts a large built up area. The assessment states that the 'Partly Contained' sites have weak/degraded/unclear boundaries. This is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. Site 078 has clear natural boundaries at the east and to the south. Furthermore, as detailed at Section 3, further planting is proposed at the site in order to contain the proposed development. Purpose 2: Parcel 9a has been assessed as an 'Important Countryside Gap'. The Assessment
states that the parcel forms either a large proportion of countryside gaps between towns or the development of the site would result in the physical narrowing of the gap and potential visual coalescence. As per the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report, it is considered that the site would result in a coherent infill development between two existing areas of developed land. The Scoping Report also confirms that the proposed development of the site wold not result in the coalescence of Margaretting and Ingatestone. Purpose 3: Parcel 9a has been assessed as 'Functional Countryside' (FC). This again, is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. As such, we do not agree that Site 078 can be defined as Functional Countryside. The site is between existing development and can therefore be considered as an infill site. Purpose 4: The assessment states that Parcel 9A has a 'limited relationship with Historic Town'. We agree with this assessment. Overall Brentwood Borough Council have assessed Parcel 9a, as having a 'moderate' contribution to the 4 purposes of Green Belt. The above review of Parcel 9a recognises that this assessment is not necessarily reflective of the qualities of every site within the parcel. In respect of this, we wish to highlight the findings of the Inspector in the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, which we consider helpful in the consideration of the PSLP. Following the Stage 1 and 2 hearing sessions at Welwyn Hatfield, the Inspector provided a note to the Council in December 2017 on its approach to review of the Green Belt (EX39 of the Welywn Hatfield Local Plan Examination). Within this note, the Inspector stated: "The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of
Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks ... I pointed
out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas." "Additionally, the phase 2 Green Belt Review, which did look at a finer grain of sites,
does not appear to have examined all of the potential development sites adjacent to
the urban areas..." "The actual development strategy finally arrived at is a matter for the Council... However, if that strategy fails to meet the FOAHN and assuming that all realistic development opportunities outside of the Green Belt have been put forward in the plan, then it is effectively saying that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying a further release of additional land from the Green Belt and that presumably means for as long as current national green belt policy and its interpretation prevails. That may be the case but unless all of the Green Belt has been forensically analysed in some detail then it is difficult to prove." Having regard to all of the above, key issues to consider include: * Whether all potential sites' impact on the Green Belt has been assessed; * Whether such assessment was undertaken at a sufficiently fine grain to properly consider individual sites' impact on the Green Belt.In respect of the PSLP, it is clear that not all potential development sites were subject to a sufficiently detailed analysis which could enable BBC to justifiably conclude it has identified a reasonable strategy to meet its housing needs, particularly where the plan is not meeting those needs in full. At the very least, there was one site that was not properly assessed: Land to the South of the B1002, Ingatestone. The Council's own evidence base states that Site 078 is suitable, available and achievable for residential development. Development of the site is supported by technical evidence that confirms its suitability, including in relation to the lack of harm to the landscape and Green Belt. The reasons given for the rejection of the Site are based on erroneous conclusions in the evidence base and should be re-examined. The rejection of Site 078 is unjustified, and overlooks an opportunity to correct other soundness deficiencies in respect of the Local Plan, including in relation to the overall quantum of housing proposed in Ingatestone. The allocation of Site 078 for development will assist in curing defects in respect of the
Local Plan, enabling it to be a sound plan.

This representation on the Brentwood Borough Proposed Submission Local Plan
(February 2019) (PSLP) is submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Barnoaks
Management Ltd. The representation is made in relation to Land south of the B1002,
Ingatestone. The site is referenced as 078 in the Council's plan making process. A location plan showing the site is provided at Appendix A of this representation. The site has previously been submitted through the Council's Call for Sites (2011) and
the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (Ref: GO20). In the
SHLAA, the site was defined as a 'greenfield parcel with potential'. More recently, the site was submitted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (2018) (Ref: 078). The site was defined in the HELAA as a suitable, achievable and available site for residential development, which could come forward within 1 - 5 years. Representations were also submitted to Brentwood Borough Council through the Regulation 18 Consultation (2018). The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the delivery of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary of Ingatestone, on land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt. Currently, the site is not proposed to be allocated for residential development. The
rejection of the site for allocation is considered unjustified. The allocation of land south of the B1002, Ingatestone, for residential development would represent a sustainable and deliverable proposal to help meet housing needs over the coming plan period. The proposed plan period runs until 2033. Assuming - optimistically - adoption in 2019, this means that the Local Plan will address development needs for a maximum of 14 years. The NPPF (Paragraph 22) is clear that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from the date of adoption. This deficiency in the PSLP is of particular relevance given that the Borough is predominately Green Belt, and failure to ensure that development needs are planned
for over a sufficient period of time would likely result in an early review of the Green Belt being required - contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 136); and undermining one of the two essential characteristics of the Green Belt; its permanence (NPPF, Paragraph 133). At paragraph 4.13 of the PSLP, it states that the Borough's housing requirement it plans for is 350 dwellings per annum. At paragraph 4.12 it states that this figure has been calculated using the Standard Method (as per the NPPF and accompanying PPG). However, this does not appear to be the case having regard to updated guidance. The PPG now confirms that 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method. The relevant subnational population projections indicate an average annual increase of 293.2 households in the Borough between 2019 and 2029. The latest (2017) ratio of median house price to median gross annual workplace-based earnings for the Borough published by the ONS is 11.23. Once the Standard Method is applied using these figures this result in a requirement of 452 dwellings per annum, not 350. The Local Plan is required to meet this need as a minimum (NPPF paragraph 35); and with sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (NPPF paragraph 11). In addition, the Local Plan is required to ensure that the revised Green Belt can endure beyond the plan period (NPPF paragraph 136), i.e. in amending the Green Belt boundary, the Local Plan should account for development needs beyond 2033 (or, more appropriately, a revised later end to the plan period, which will ensure strategic policies will cover at least 15 years). A further factor is the need to consider unmet needs of neighbouring authorities (NPPF paragraph 35). In this respect, we note in particular that Epping Forest District Council is at an advanced stage in the preparation of a Local Plan (at the time of writing it is currently being examined) which proposes to deliver 11,400 dwellings between 2011 and 2033 (518 dwellings per annum), against a requirement (based on the Standard Method) of 944 dwellings per annum. We are not aware of Brentwood Borough Council having objected to this approach, but neither is there any indication that the PSLP addresses any of this unmet need. The PSLP considers it appropriate to apply a 20% uplift to the identified housing target of 350 dwellings per annum, resulting in a proposed target of 456 dwellings per annum. The PSLP's rationale for this buffer is somewhat unclear: it states at Figure 4.1 that the buffer allows for an additional housing land supply to be maintained in the Borough throughout the plan period; but states at footnote 2 that the housing supply buffer serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, pending the outcome of the Government's 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance'. In any case, the uplift means that the proposed annual housing target in the PSLP is only fractionally above the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and does not provide any flexibility to ensure needs are met; does not ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period; and does not account for unmet need in neighbouring authorities. Further to our comments in respect of the plan period, and the PSLP's failure to ensure strategic policies are in place to cover at least 15 years from adoption, as an absolute minimum the PSLP must be amended to ensure an additional years' worth of housing need can be accommodated. Given likely timescales for adoption of the Local Plan, we suggest a plan period to 2035 should be treated as a minimum, and an additional two years' worth of development needs to that which the PSLP currently seeks to address should be planned for. Whilst we suggest 2035 should be the treated as the earliest end to the plan period, it should also be recognised that the authority is predominantly Green Belt. The NPPF requires this Local Plan to ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period. As such, we suggest the PSLP that even if the plan period is extended until 2035, policies should account for potential development needs beyond this period. The Council is required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at any point in the plan period. In terms of the five-year housing requirement, the NPPF (paragraph 73) confirms a 20% buffer should be applied to the initial calculation in the event the results of the Housing Delivery Test show that delivery has fallen below 85% of the requirement. The PPG confirms the requirement to apply such a buffer in such circumstances also applies where the Local Planning Authority are seeking to confirm their five-year housing land supply through a recently adopted Local Plan. The 2018 Housing Delivery Test measurement for Brentwood Borough shows that only 51% of the Borough's housing requirements were met over the last three years; well below the figure required to avoid a 20% buffer having to be applied. The Borough's most recent reported five-year housing land supply (Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2018 (November 2018) ('HLSS') is 4.1 years. However, this is predicated on a requirement which, when considered in relation to the latest guidance, understates need; and a supply which, again when considered in relation to latest guidance, overstates supply. As such, the actual housing land supply is considerably less. Looking at this in detail, the HLSS considers an annual need of 343 dwellings, resulting in a total requirement once the 20% has been applied of 2,058 dwellings. However, applying the latest guidance and the Standard Method, the Borough's housing requirement is 452 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% buffer, this results in a five year requirement of 2,712 dwellings. In terms of supply, the HLSS includes sites without detailed planning permission and
without evidence such sites will be delivered within five years. As per the NPPF, such
sites cannot be considerable deliverable for the purposes of the five-year housing land supply. Table 1 of the HLSS suggests that at least 1,042 dwellings in the reported supply did not have planning permission. Once these are removed from the supply calculation, the five-year supply comprises just 653 dwellings. It is unclear how many of the dwellings categorised as having extant planning permission are on major sites which only benefit from outline permission. Such sites would also have to be discounted. As such, the figure of 653 dwellings may overstate housing supply. A five-year supply of 653 dwellings compared to a requirement of 2,712 represents a 1.2-year housing land supply. The acute housing land supply shortage underlines the importance of allocating sites through the Local Plan which can deliver early in the plan period, and the need to avoid over reliance on large strategic sites which inevitably take a considerable time to bring forward. The housing trajectory provided as Appendix 1 to the PSLP projects that it will enable completion of 2,305 dwellings between 2019/20 and 2023/24 (or, to be precise, it projects 2,305.1 dwellings). Having regard to the Standard Method and the need to apply a 20% buffer to the housing requirement, the total five-year requirement for the Borough is 2,712 dwellings. Therefore, even before critical review of the supply, the PSLP will not provide a five-year supply of housing. Furthermore, and in respect of the projected supply, we are concerned to note that
Dunton Hills Garden Village is projected to delivery housing completions from 2022/23, i.e. falling within the first five years of the plan. Dunton Hills Garden Village is a proposed major strategic development, intended to provide 4,000 dwellings, 5.5 hectares of employment land, two new primary schools, secondary school, new village shopping centre, new transport infrastructure, and new community and health infrastructure. Delivery will require the coordination and input of multiple landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders. The site has yet to even be allocated. Once allocated, the PSLP proposes a masterplan and design guidance will be required to be prepared. Following this, an outline application will need to be prepared, submitted, and determined; followed by reserved matters. It will also be necessary to discharge all planning conditions and S106 obligations. All of this before development has even begun. The ability of larger sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin review (2018) and issues with their complexity have been ably set out in the Lichfield Study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematic due to a range of factors, including establishing the required infrastructure, and the timings of housing delivery associated with those requirements as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Litchfield's report confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5yrs for the planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for sites over 1,000 units. For the above reasons it is unrealistic to project that 100 homes will be completed at
Dunton Hills Garden Village as early as 2022/23. This does not in itself mean that
Dunton Hills Garden Village proposals cannot form part of a sound Local Plan, but it
does mean that additional smaller sites capable of providing homes in the early years of the plan period also need to be allocated in order to ensure the Local Plan is sound. The strategic sites are expected to deliver 1555 dwellings within 5yrs of adoption. Given the matters set out above, this is unrealistic and it would not be justified to rely on these sites to meet short term housing delivery. This emphasises the need to review sites such as ref. 078 to provide for more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery, to ensure the plan is Sound. Ingatestone is defined as a Category 2 Settlement. The Borough defines Category 2
settlements as larger villages in a rural setting, with high levels of accessibility and public transport provision, including rail services. These settlements provide a range of services and facilities to the immediate residential areas and nearby settlements. The PSLP states that appropriate urban extension and brownfield development
opportunities will be encouraged to meet local needs. In 2011, Ingatestone had a population of 4,812 (Census; 2011). It is the Borough's largest village, with a modest level of facilities, including a secondary school. Furthermore, Ingatestone Railway Station is located within the village, and provides frequent railway services to London Liverpool Street, Stratford (London), Chelmsford, Colchester and other surrounding settlements. The PSLP confirms that although Ingatestone has relatively good facilities, a modest level of development is envisaged, due to infrastructure constraints and a lack of suitable sites. As such, only two sites have been allocated for residential development in the PSLP -R21 and R22. This results in a total of 218 dwellings for Ingatestone over the plan period. Site 078 has previously been defined in the HELAA (2018) as suitable, available and achievable site for residential development. The PSLP in this case is flawed, as it doesn't appropriately consider Site 078 as a suitable site for residential development. It is considered that the PSLP fails to support the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The
failure to thoroughly consider Site 078 for residential development is unjustified. To ensure the Local Plan is sound, further suitable sites within Ingatestone should be
allocated to ensure the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the development of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary, on land,
which is currently allocated as Green Belt. The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north and south and the B1002 to the west. To the eastern boundary of the site are agricultural fields. A considerable amount of technical work has been undertaken in respect of land south of the B1002 and has previously been submitted to the Council through previous stages of the plan-making process. The technical work undertaken demonstrates that the site is sustainable, suitable, available and achievable and its development would help meet the Borough's housing need. Work undertaken, and previously provided is included in this representation for completeness: * Proposed Site Plan prepared by Grafik (Appendix B); * Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix C); * Landscape Advisory Plan prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix D); * Access Appraisal by Ardent Engineers (Appendix E). In previous representations submitted to the Council, we have commented specifically on the proposals for layout and landscaping, providing that the site would be allocated for residential development by the Council. A Feasibility Layout prepared by Graffik Architecture has previously been submitted to the Council and is included within this representation for completeness. The feasibility study demonstrates how 54 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The layout illustrates how the site could provide infill development to the already existing settlement of Ingatestone, without adversely harming the landscape character of the area or the character of Ingatestone itself. The Feasibility Layout also shows the potential proposals for landscaping on site. These proposals have been formed through careful consideration of the existing landscape character of Ingatestone and in line with the Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscape Advisory Plan which has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin. The report and plan also accompany this representation. As set out above, a Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscaping Advisory Plan has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin and accompanies this representation. It is proposed that there is to be retained and enhanced landscaping on site, specifically to the eastern and southern boundaries. This landscaping proposal takes into account the Grade II Listed Building - Rays - which is located beyond the eastern boundary of the site. By proposing dense planting at this boundary, it will ensure that the development proposal has no adverse effect on the nearby listed building. The Feasibility Layout also illustrates that planting will be retained at the western boundary of the site at the High Street, where access to the site is proposed. Furthermore, it is illustrated that the existing oak tree at the western part of the site will be retained to provide a substantial area of open space on the site. The Scoping Report suggests that these simple design controls and landscape mitigation measures, such as the protection of existing field boundary hedgerows, along with retaining an open space around the mature Oak Tree at the front of the site, would help to ensure that the proposed development would be as successful as possible in landscape and visual terms. The Scoping Report found that the visual influence of the site to surrounding locations was found to be limited due to the built up nature of the surrounding area, for example the ribbon development to the north and the settlement edge of Ingatestone to the south. The report states that development of the site should be considered as a logical area for infill development along the B1002. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004) requires SA/SEAs to inter alia set out the reasons for the selection of preferred alternatives, and the rejections of others, be made set out. In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance4 makes clear that the strategic
environmental assessment should outline the reasons the alternatives were selected,
the reasons the rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives. Sustainability Appraisal of the PSLP has been published: the Sustainability Appraisal of the Brentwood Local Plan January 2019 (the SA). Paragraph 5.5.31 of the SA confirms that Site 078 is listed as 1 of 5 omission sites in the HELAA as it is "deliverable or developable". The SA confirms that the two sites with the greatest potential for allocation are the adjacent "Parklands" Sites (Ref: 078 and Ref: 243), at the northern boundary of the village. The SA states that the accompanying Green Belt Review found that both sites contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt to a 'moderate' extent, however neither site is fully contained in the landscape. The SA concludes that the option of adding one or more omission sites was determined as "unreasonable", for the purposes of establishing reasonable spatial alternatives. No details are provided to explain in what way Site 078 is considered not to be fully contained in the landscape. Furthermore, as per Section 3 of this representation, the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report confirms that further planting can be provided on site at all boundaries, thus ensuring it is a contained site. The proposed planting would be effective in appropriately screening the proposed development and ensuring the village character of Ingatestone is retained. In short, the SA does not provide a justified reason for the rejection of the site. Turning to the specifics of the SA assessment of the site, these are set out in Table C of the SA. This provides a 'traffic light' assessment of sites' sustainability. Green indicates sites perform well; amber - poorly; red- particularly poorly; against specific criteria. Our first point in relation to the approach taken is that it is very simplistic - the assessment of site appears to be based purely on physical distance to various features / facilities / designations. For example, in relation to criteria 10 (Conservation Area), our site is considered to score 'poorly'. Part of Ingatestone High Street is defined as a Conservation Area, however site 078 is not within this designation and is located at least 400m from the defined Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development of the site would not unacceptably impact the Conservation Area. Furthermore, in relation to criteria 1 (Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located approximately 1 mile from AQMA BRW6 at the A12/Fryerning Lane. It is considered that the AQMA will not be adversely impacted by the site, given the distance between the two. In relation to criteria 8 (Primary School), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located 0.5 miles from both an infant and junior school. It is considered that the primary school provisions within Ingatestone are within walking distance to the site and the site should not be scored as 'poorly' in relation to this criterion. As per the reasons above, we therefore consider the SA's assessment to be flawed. A Green Belt Study and Assessment has been undertaken by Crestwood Environmental
Ltd as part of the Regulation 19 Consultation. The Assessment looks to assess specific green belt parcels in relation to the 4 purposes of the Green Belt. These are: Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging in to one another; Purpose 3 - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Following this assessment, the parcel is given an overall assessment rating. The ratings are; Low; Low-Moderate; Moderate; Moderate - High; High. Site 078 is within Parcel 9A of the Green Belt Assessment. Parcel 9a includes land to the northeast of Ingatestone. The parcel size is 41.94ha. Purpose 1: Parcel 9a is defined by the Council as 'Partly Contained', as it abuts a large built up area. The assessment states that the 'Partly Contained' sites have weak/degraded/unclear boundaries. This is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. Site 078 has clear natural boundaries at the east and to the south. Furthermore, as detailed at Section 3, further planting is proposed at the site in order to contain the proposed development. Purpose 2: Parcel 9a has been assessed as an 'Important Countryside Gap'. The Assessment
states that the parcel forms either a large proportion of countryside gaps between towns or the development of the site would result in the physical narrowing of the gap and potential visual coalescence. As per the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report, it is considered that the site would result in a coherent infill development between two existing areas of developed land. The Scoping Report also confirms that the proposed development of the site wold not result in the coalescence of Margaretting and Ingatestone. Purpose 3: Parcel 9a has been assessed as 'Functional Countryside' (FC). This again, is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. As such, we do not agree that Site 078 can be defined as Functional Countryside. The site is between existing development and can therefore be considered as an infill site. Purpose 4: The assessment states that Parcel 9A has a 'limited relationship with Historic Town'. We agree with this assessment. Overall Brentwood Borough Council have assessed Parcel 9a, as having a 'moderate' contribution to the 4 purposes of Green Belt. The above review of Parcel 9a recognises that this assessment is not necessarily reflective of the qualities of every site within the parcel. In respect of this, we wish to highlight the findings of the Inspector in the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, which we consider helpful in the consideration of the PSLP. Following the Stage 1 and 2 hearing sessions at Welwyn Hatfield, the Inspector provided a note to the Council in December 2017 on its approach to review of the Green Belt (EX39 of the Welywn Hatfield Local Plan Examination). Within this note, the Inspector stated: "The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of
Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks ... I pointed
out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas." "Additionally, the phase 2 Green Belt Review, which did look at a finer grain of sites,
does not appear to have examined all of the potential development sites adjacent to
the urban areas..." "The actual development strategy finally arrived at is a matter for the Council... However, if that strategy fails to meet the FOAHN and assuming that all realistic development opportunities outside of the Green Belt have been put forward in the plan, then it is effectively saying that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying a further release of additional land from the Green Belt and that presumably means for as long as current national green belt policy and its interpretation prevails. That may be the case but unless all of the Green Belt has been forensically analysed in some detail then it is difficult to prove." Having regard to all of the above, key issues to consider include: * Whether all potential sites' impact on the Green Belt has been assessed; * Whether such assessment was undertaken at a sufficiently fine grain to properly consider individual sites' impact on the Green Belt.In respect of the PSLP, it is clear that not all potential development sites were subject to a sufficiently detailed analysis which could enable BBC to justifiably conclude it has identified a reasonable strategy to meet its housing needs, particularly where the plan is not meeting those needs in full. At the very least, there was one site that was not properly assessed: Land to the South of the B1002, Ingatestone. The Council's own evidence base states that Site 078 is suitable, available and achievable for residential development. Development of the site is supported by technical evidence that confirms its suitability, including in relation to the lack of harm to the landscape and Green Belt. The reasons given for the rejection of the Site are based on erroneous conclusions in the evidence base and should be re-examined. The rejection of Site 078 is unjustified, and overlooks an opportunity to correct other soundness deficiencies in respect of the Local Plan, including in relation to the overall quantum of housing proposed in Ingatestone. The allocation of Site 078 for development will assist in curing defects in respect of the
Local Plan, enabling it to be a sound plan.

This representation on the Brentwood Borough Proposed Submission Local Plan
(February 2019) (PSLP) is submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Barnoaks
Management Ltd. The representation is made in relation to Land south of the B1002,
Ingatestone. The site is referenced as 078 in the Council's plan making process. A location plan showing the site is provided at Appendix A of this representation. The site has previously been submitted through the Council's Call for Sites (2011) and
the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (Ref: GO20). In the
SHLAA, the site was defined as a 'greenfield parcel with potential'. More recently, the site was submitted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (2018) (Ref: 078). The site was defined in the HELAA as a suitable, achievable and available site for residential development, which could come forward within 1 - 5 years. Representations were also submitted to Brentwood Borough Council through the Regulation 18 Consultation (2018). The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the delivery of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary of Ingatestone, on land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt. Currently, the site is not proposed to be allocated for residential development. The
rejection of the site for allocation is considered unjustified. The allocation of land south of the B1002, Ingatestone, for residential development would represent a sustainable and deliverable proposal to help meet housing needs over the coming plan period. The proposed plan period runs until 2033. Assuming - optimistically - adoption in 2019, this means that the Local Plan will address development needs for a maximum of 14 years. The NPPF (Paragraph 22) is clear that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from the date of adoption. This deficiency in the PSLP is of particular relevance given that the Borough is predominately Green Belt, and failure to ensure that development needs are planned
for over a sufficient period of time would likely result in an early review of the Green Belt being required - contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 136); and undermining one of the two essential characteristics of the Green Belt; its permanence (NPPF, Paragraph 133). At paragraph 4.13 of the PSLP, it states that the Borough's housing requirement it plans for is 350 dwellings per annum. At paragraph 4.12 it states that this figure has been calculated using the Standard Method (as per the NPPF and accompanying PPG). However, this does not appear to be the case having regard to updated guidance. The PPG now confirms that 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method. The relevant subnational population projections indicate an average annual increase of 293.2 households in the Borough between 2019 and 2029. The latest (2017) ratio of median house price to median gross annual workplace-based earnings for the Borough published by the ONS is 11.23. Once the Standard Method is applied using these figures this result in a requirement of 452 dwellings per annum, not 350. The Local Plan is required to meet this need as a minimum (NPPF paragraph 35); and with sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (NPPF paragraph 11). In addition, the Local Plan is required to ensure that the revised Green Belt can endure beyond the plan period (NPPF paragraph 136), i.e. in amending the Green Belt boundary, the Local Plan should account for development needs beyond 2033 (or, more appropriately, a revised later end to the plan period, which will ensure strategic policies will cover at least 15 years). A further factor is the need to consider unmet needs of neighbouring authorities (NPPF paragraph 35). In this respect, we note in particular that Epping Forest District Council is at an advanced stage in the preparation of a Local Plan (at the time of writing it is currently being examined) which proposes to deliver 11,400 dwellings between 2011 and 2033 (518 dwellings per annum), against a requirement (based on the Standard Method) of 944 dwellings per annum. We are not aware of Brentwood Borough Council having objected to this approach, but neither is there any indication that the PSLP addresses any of this unmet need. The PSLP considers it appropriate to apply a 20% uplift to the identified housing target of 350 dwellings per annum, resulting in a proposed target of 456 dwellings per annum. The PSLP's rationale for this buffer is somewhat unclear: it states at Figure 4.1 that the buffer allows for an additional housing land supply to be maintained in the Borough throughout the plan period; but states at footnote 2 that the housing supply buffer serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, pending the outcome of the Government's 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance'. In any case, the uplift means that the proposed annual housing target in the PSLP is only fractionally above the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and does not provide any flexibility to ensure needs are met; does not ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period; and does not account for unmet need in neighbouring authorities. Further to our comments in respect of the plan period, and the PSLP's failure to ensure strategic policies are in place to cover at least 15 years from adoption, as an absolute minimum the PSLP must be amended to ensure an additional years' worth of housing need can be accommodated. Given likely timescales for adoption of the Local Plan, we suggest a plan period to 2035 should be treated as a minimum, and an additional two years' worth of development needs to that which the PSLP currently seeks to address should be planned for. Whilst we suggest 2035 should be the treated as the earliest end to the plan period, it should also be recognised that the authority is predominantly Green Belt. The NPPF requires this Local Plan to ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period. As such, we suggest the PSLP that even if the plan period is extended until 2035, policies should account for potential development needs beyond this period. The Council is required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at any point in the plan period. In terms of the five-year housing requirement, the NPPF (paragraph 73) confirms a 20% buffer should be applied to the initial calculation in the event the results of the Housing Delivery Test show that delivery has fallen below 85% of the requirement. The PPG confirms the requirement to apply such a buffer in such circumstances also applies where the Local Planning Authority are seeking to confirm their five-year housing land supply through a recently adopted Local Plan. The 2018 Housing Delivery Test measurement for Brentwood Borough shows that only 51% of the Borough's housing requirements were met over the last three years; well below the figure required to avoid a 20% buffer having to be applied. The Borough's most recent reported five-year housing land supply (Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2018 (November 2018) ('HLSS') is 4.1 years. However, this is predicated on a requirement which, when considered in relation to the latest guidance, understates need; and a supply which, again when considered in relation to latest guidance, overstates supply. As such, the actual housing land supply is considerably less. Looking at this in detail, the HLSS considers an annual need of 343 dwellings, resulting in a total requirement once the 20% has been applied of 2,058 dwellings. However, applying the latest guidance and the Standard Method, the Borough's housing requirement is 452 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% buffer, this results in a five year requirement of 2,712 dwellings. In terms of supply, the HLSS includes sites without detailed planning permission and
without evidence such sites will be delivered within five years. As per the NPPF, such
sites cannot be considerable deliverable for the purposes of the five-year housing land supply. Table 1 of the HLSS suggests that at least 1,042 dwellings in the reported supply did not have planning permission. Once these are removed from the supply calculation, the five-year supply comprises just 653 dwellings. It is unclear how many of the dwellings categorised as having extant planning permission are on major sites which only benefit from outline permission. Such sites would also have to be discounted. As such, the figure of 653 dwellings may overstate housing supply. A five-year supply of 653 dwellings compared to a requirement of 2,712 represents a 1.2-year housing land supply. The acute housing land supply shortage underlines the importance of allocating sites through the Local Plan which can deliver early in the plan period, and the need to avoid over reliance on large strategic sites which inevitably take a considerable time to bring forward. The housing trajectory provided as Appendix 1 to the PSLP projects that it will enable completion of 2,305 dwellings between 2019/20 and 2023/24 (or, to be precise, it projects 2,305.1 dwellings). Having regard to the Standard Method and the need to apply a 20% buffer to the housing requirement, the total five-year requirement for the Borough is 2,712 dwellings. Therefore, even before critical review of the supply, the PSLP will not provide a five-year supply of housing. Furthermore, and in respect of the projected supply, we are concerned to note that
Dunton Hills Garden Village is projected to delivery housing completions from 2022/23, i.e. falling within the first five years of the plan. Dunton Hills Garden Village is a proposed major strategic development, intended to provide 4,000 dwellings, 5.5 hectares of employment land, two new primary schools, secondary school, new village shopping centre, new transport infrastructure, and new community and health infrastructure. Delivery will require the coordination and input of multiple landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders. The site has yet to even be allocated. Once allocated, the PSLP proposes a masterplan and design guidance will be required to be prepared. Following this, an outline application will need to be prepared, submitted, and determined; followed by reserved matters. It will also be necessary to discharge all planning conditions and S106 obligations. All of this before development has even begun. The ability of larger sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin review (2018) and issues with their complexity have been ably set out in the Lichfield Study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematic due to a range of factors, including establishing the required infrastructure, and the timings of housing delivery associated with those requirements as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Litchfield's report confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5yrs for the planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for sites over 1,000 units. For the above reasons it is unrealistic to project that 100 homes will be completed at
Dunton Hills Garden Village as early as 2022/23. This does not in itself mean that
Dunton Hills Garden Village proposals cannot form part of a sound Local Plan, but it
does mean that additional smaller sites capable of providing homes in the early years of the plan period also need to be allocated in order to ensure the Local Plan is sound. The strategic sites are expected to deliver 1555 dwellings within 5yrs of adoption. Given the matters set out above, this is unrealistic and it would not be justified to rely on these sites to meet short term housing delivery. This emphasises the need to review sites such as ref. 078 to provide for more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery, to ensure the plan is Sound. Ingatestone is defined as a Category 2 Settlement. The Borough defines Category 2
settlements as larger villages in a rural setting, with high levels of accessibility and public transport provision, including rail services. These settlements provide a range of services and facilities to the immediate residential areas and nearby settlements. The PSLP states that appropriate urban extension and brownfield development
opportunities will be encouraged to meet local needs. In 2011, Ingatestone had a population of 4,812 (Census; 2011). It is the Borough's largest village, with a modest level of facilities, including a secondary school. Furthermore, Ingatestone Railway Station is located within the village, and provides frequent railway services to London Liverpool Street, Stratford (London), Chelmsford, Colchester and other surrounding settlements. The PSLP confirms that although Ingatestone has relatively good facilities, a modest level of development is envisaged, due to infrastructure constraints and a lack of suitable sites. As such, only two sites have been allocated for residential development in the PSLP -R21 and R22. This results in a total of 218 dwellings for Ingatestone over the plan period. Site 078 has previously been defined in the HELAA (2018) as suitable, available and achievable site for residential development. The PSLP in this case is flawed, as it doesn't appropriately consider Site 078 as a suitable site for residential development. It is considered that the PSLP fails to support the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The
failure to thoroughly consider Site 078 for residential development is unjustified. To ensure the Local Plan is sound, further suitable sites within Ingatestone should be
allocated to ensure the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the development of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary, on land,
which is currently allocated as Green Belt. The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north and south and the B1002 to the west. To the eastern boundary of the site are agricultural fields. A considerable amount of technical work has been undertaken in respect of land south of the B1002 and has previously been submitted to the Council through previous stages of the plan-making process. The technical work undertaken demonstrates that the site is sustainable, suitable, available and achievable and its development would help meet the Borough's housing need. Work undertaken, and previously provided is included in this representation for completeness: * Proposed Site Plan prepared by Grafik (Appendix B); * Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix C); * Landscape Advisory Plan prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix D); * Access Appraisal by Ardent Engineers (Appendix E). In previous representations submitted to the Council, we have commented specifically on the proposals for layout and landscaping, providing that the site would be allocated for residential development by the Council. A Feasibility Layout prepared by Graffik Architecture has previously been submitted to the Council and is included within this representation for completeness. The feasibility study demonstrates how 54 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The layout illustrates how the site could provide infill development to the already existing settlement of Ingatestone, without adversely harming the landscape character of the area or the character of Ingatestone itself. The Feasibility Layout also shows the potential proposals for landscaping on site. These proposals have been formed through careful consideration of the existing landscape character of Ingatestone and in line with the Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscape Advisory Plan which has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin. The report and plan also accompany this representation. As set out above, a Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscaping Advisory Plan has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin and accompanies this representation. It is proposed that there is to be retained and enhanced landscaping on site, specifically to the eastern and southern boundaries. This landscaping proposal takes into account the Grade II Listed Building - Rays - which is located beyond the eastern boundary of the site. By proposing dense planting at this boundary, it will ensure that the development proposal has no adverse effect on the nearby listed building. The Feasibility Layout also illustrates that planting will be retained at the western boundary of the site at the High Street, where access to the site is proposed. Furthermore, it is illustrated that the existing oak tree at the western part of the site will be retained to provide a substantial area of open space on the site. The Scoping Report suggests that these simple design controls and landscape mitigation measures, such as the protection of existing field boundary hedgerows, along with retaining an open space around the mature Oak Tree at the front of the site, would help to ensure that the proposed development would be as successful as possible in landscape and visual terms. The Scoping Report found that the visual influence of the site to surrounding locations was found to be limited due to the built up nature of the surrounding area, for example the ribbon development to the north and the settlement edge of Ingatestone to the south. The report states that development of the site should be considered as a logical area for infill development along the B1002. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004) requires SA/SEAs to inter alia set out the reasons for the selection of preferred alternatives, and the rejections of others, be made set out. In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance4 makes clear that the strategic
environmental assessment should outline the reasons the alternatives were selected,
the reasons the rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives. Sustainability Appraisal of the PSLP has been published: the Sustainability Appraisal of the Brentwood Local Plan January 2019 (the SA). Paragraph 5.5.31 of the SA confirms that Site 078 is listed as 1 of 5 omission sites in the HELAA as it is "deliverable or developable". The SA confirms that the two sites with the greatest potential for allocation are the adjacent "Parklands" Sites (Ref: 078 and Ref: 243), at the northern boundary of the village. The SA states that the accompanying Green Belt Review found that both sites contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt to a 'moderate' extent, however neither site is fully contained in the landscape. The SA concludes that the option of adding one or more omission sites was determined as "unreasonable", for the purposes of establishing reasonable spatial alternatives. No details are provided to explain in what way Site 078 is considered not to be fully contained in the landscape. Furthermore, as per Section 3 of this representation, the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report confirms that further planting can be provided on site at all boundaries, thus ensuring it is a contained site. The proposed planting would be effective in appropriately screening the proposed development and ensuring the village character of Ingatestone is retained. In short, the SA does not provide a justified reason for the rejection of the site. Turning to the specifics of the SA assessment of the site, these are set out in Table C of the SA. This provides a 'traffic light' assessment of sites' sustainability. Green indicates sites perform well; amber - poorly; red- particularly poorly; against specific criteria. Our first point in relation to the approach taken is that it is very simplistic - the assessment of site appears to be based purely on physical distance to various features / facilities / designations. For example, in relation to criteria 10 (Conservation Area), our site is considered to score 'poorly'. Part of Ingatestone High Street is defined as a Conservation Area, however site 078 is not within this designation and is located at least 400m from the defined Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development of the site would not unacceptably impact the Conservation Area. Furthermore, in relation to criteria 1 (Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located approximately 1 mile from AQMA BRW6 at the A12/Fryerning Lane. It is considered that the AQMA will not be adversely impacted by the site, given the distance between the two. In relation to criteria 8 (Primary School), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located 0.5 miles from both an infant and junior school. It is considered that the primary school provisions within Ingatestone are within walking distance to the site and the site should not be scored as 'poorly' in relation to this criterion. As per the reasons above, we therefore consider the SA's assessment to be flawed. A Green Belt Study and Assessment has been undertaken by Crestwood Environmental
Ltd as part of the Regulation 19 Consultation. The Assessment looks to assess specific green belt parcels in relation to the 4 purposes of the Green Belt. These are: Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging in to one another; Purpose 3 - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Following this assessment, the parcel is given an overall assessment rating. The ratings are; Low; Low-Moderate; Moderate; Moderate - High; High. Site 078 is within Parcel 9A of the Green Belt Assessment. Parcel 9a includes land to the northeast of Ingatestone. The parcel size is 41.94ha. Purpose 1: Parcel 9a is defined by the Council as 'Partly Contained', as it abuts a large built up area. The assessment states that the 'Partly Contained' sites have weak/degraded/unclear boundaries. This is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. Site 078 has clear natural boundaries at the east and to the south. Furthermore, as detailed at Section 3, further planting is proposed at the site in order to contain the proposed development. Purpose 2: Parcel 9a has been assessed as an 'Important Countryside Gap'. The Assessment
states that the parcel forms either a large proportion of countryside gaps between towns or the development of the site would result in the physical narrowing of the gap and potential visual coalescence. As per the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report, it is considered that the site would result in a coherent infill development between two existing areas of developed land. The Scoping Report also confirms that the proposed development of the site wold not result in the coalescence of Margaretting and Ingatestone. Purpose 3: Parcel 9a has been assessed as 'Functional Countryside' (FC). This again, is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. As such, we do not agree that Site 078 can be defined as Functional Countryside. The site is between existing development and can therefore be considered as an infill site. Purpose 4: The assessment states that Parcel 9A has a 'limited relationship with Historic Town'. We agree with this assessment. Overall Brentwood Borough Council have assessed Parcel 9a, as having a 'moderate' contribution to the 4 purposes of Green Belt. The above review of Parcel 9a recognises that this assessment is not necessarily reflective of the qualities of every site within the parcel. In respect of this, we wish to highlight the findings of the Inspector in the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, which we consider helpful in the consideration of the PSLP. Following the Stage 1 and 2 hearing sessions at Welwyn Hatfield, the Inspector provided a note to the Council in December 2017 on its approach to review of the Green Belt (EX39 of the Welywn Hatfield Local Plan Examination). Within this note, the Inspector stated: "The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of
Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks ... I pointed
out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas." "Additionally, the phase 2 Green Belt Review, which did look at a finer grain of sites,
does not appear to have examined all of the potential development sites adjacent to
the urban areas..." "The actual development strategy finally arrived at is a matter for the Council... However, if that strategy fails to meet the FOAHN and assuming that all realistic development opportunities outside of the Green Belt have been put forward in the plan, then it is effectively saying that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying a further release of additional land from the Green Belt and that presumably means for as long as current national green belt policy and its interpretation prevails. That may be the case but unless all of the Green Belt has been forensically analysed in some detail then it is difficult to prove." Having regard to all of the above, key issues to consider include: * Whether all potential sites' impact on the Green Belt has been assessed; * Whether such assessment was undertaken at a sufficiently fine grain to properly consider individual sites' impact on the Green Belt.In respect of the PSLP, it is clear that not all potential development sites were subject to a sufficiently detailed analysis which could enable BBC to justifiably conclude it has identified a reasonable strategy to meet its housing needs, particularly where the plan is not meeting those needs in full. At the very least, there was one site that was not properly assessed: Land to the South of the B1002, Ingatestone. The Council's own evidence base states that Site 078 is suitable, available and achievable for residential development. Development of the site is supported by technical evidence that confirms its suitability, including in relation to the lack of harm to the landscape and Green Belt. The reasons given for the rejection of the Site are based on erroneous conclusions in the evidence base and should be re-examined. The rejection of Site 078 is unjustified, and overlooks an opportunity to correct other soundness deficiencies in respect of the Local Plan, including in relation to the overall quantum of housing proposed in Ingatestone. The allocation of Site 078 for development will assist in curing defects in respect of the
Local Plan, enabling it to be a sound plan.

This representation on the Brentwood Borough Proposed Submission Local Plan
(February 2019) (PSLP) is submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Barnoaks
Management Ltd. The representation is made in relation to Land south of the B1002,
Ingatestone. The site is referenced as 078 in the Council's plan making process. A location plan showing the site is provided at Appendix A of this representation. The site has previously been submitted through the Council's Call for Sites (2011) and
the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (Ref: GO20). In the
SHLAA, the site was defined as a 'greenfield parcel with potential'. More recently, the site was submitted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (2018) (Ref: 078). The site was defined in the HELAA as a suitable, achievable and available site for residential development, which could come forward within 1 - 5 years. Representations were also submitted to Brentwood Borough Council through the Regulation 18 Consultation (2018). The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the delivery of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary of Ingatestone, on land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt. Currently, the site is not proposed to be allocated for residential development. The
rejection of the site for allocation is considered unjustified. The allocation of land south of the B1002, Ingatestone, for residential development would represent a sustainable and deliverable proposal to help meet housing needs over the coming plan period. The proposed plan period runs until 2033. Assuming - optimistically - adoption in 2019, this means that the Local Plan will address development needs for a maximum of 14 years. The NPPF (Paragraph 22) is clear that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from the date of adoption. This deficiency in the PSLP is of particular relevance given that the Borough is predominately Green Belt, and failure to ensure that development needs are planned
for over a sufficient period of time would likely result in an early review of the Green Belt being required - contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 136); and undermining one of the two essential characteristics of the Green Belt; its permanence (NPPF, Paragraph 133). At paragraph 4.13 of the PSLP, it states that the Borough's housing requirement it plans for is 350 dwellings per annum. At paragraph 4.12 it states that this figure has been calculated using the Standard Method (as per the NPPF and accompanying PPG). However, this does not appear to be the case having regard to updated guidance. The PPG now confirms that 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method. The relevant subnational population projections indicate an average annual increase of 293.2 households in the Borough between 2019 and 2029. The latest (2017) ratio of median house price to median gross annual workplace-based earnings for the Borough published by the ONS is 11.23. Once the Standard Method is applied using these figures this result in a requirement of 452 dwellings per annum, not 350. The Local Plan is required to meet this need as a minimum (NPPF paragraph 35); and with sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (NPPF paragraph 11). In addition, the Local Plan is required to ensure that the revised Green Belt can endure beyond the plan period (NPPF paragraph 136), i.e. in amending the Green Belt boundary, the Local Plan should account for development needs beyond 2033 (or, more appropriately, a revised later end to the plan period, which will ensure strategic policies will cover at least 15 years). A further factor is the need to consider unmet needs of neighbouring authorities (NPPF paragraph 35). In this respect, we note in particular that Epping Forest District Council is at an advanced stage in the preparation of a Local Plan (at the time of writing it is currently being examined) which proposes to deliver 11,400 dwellings between 2011 and 2033 (518 dwellings per annum), against a requirement (based on the Standard Method) of 944 dwellings per annum. We are not aware of Brentwood Borough Council having objected to this approach, but neither is there any indication that the PSLP addresses any of this unmet need. The PSLP considers it appropriate to apply a 20% uplift to the identified housing target of 350 dwellings per annum, resulting in a proposed target of 456 dwellings per annum. The PSLP's rationale for this buffer is somewhat unclear: it states at Figure 4.1 that the buffer allows for an additional housing land supply to be maintained in the Borough throughout the plan period; but states at footnote 2 that the housing supply buffer serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, pending the outcome of the Government's 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance'. In any case, the uplift means that the proposed annual housing target in the PSLP is only fractionally above the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and does not provide any flexibility to ensure needs are met; does not ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period; and does not account for unmet need in neighbouring authorities. Further to our comments in respect of the plan period, and the PSLP's failure to ensure strategic policies are in place to cover at least 15 years from adoption, as an absolute minimum the PSLP must be amended to ensure an additional years' worth of housing need can be accommodated. Given likely timescales for adoption of the Local Plan, we suggest a plan period to 2035 should be treated as a minimum, and an additional two years' worth of development needs to that which the PSLP currently seeks to address should be planned for. Whilst we suggest 2035 should be the treated as the earliest end to the plan period, it should also be recognised that the authority is predominantly Green Belt. The NPPF requires this Local Plan to ensure the Green Belt will endure beyond the plan period. As such, we suggest the PSLP that even if the plan period is extended until 2035, policies should account for potential development needs beyond this period. The Council is required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at any point in the plan period. In terms of the five-year housing requirement, the NPPF (paragraph 73) confirms a 20% buffer should be applied to the initial calculation in the event the results of the Housing Delivery Test show that delivery has fallen below 85% of the requirement. The PPG confirms the requirement to apply such a buffer in such circumstances also applies where the Local Planning Authority are seeking to confirm their five-year housing land supply through a recently adopted Local Plan. The 2018 Housing Delivery Test measurement for Brentwood Borough shows that only 51% of the Borough's housing requirements were met over the last three years; well below the figure required to avoid a 20% buffer having to be applied. The Borough's most recent reported five-year housing land supply (Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2018 (November 2018) ('HLSS') is 4.1 years. However, this is predicated on a requirement which, when considered in relation to the latest guidance, understates need; and a supply which, again when considered in relation to latest guidance, overstates supply. As such, the actual housing land supply is considerably less. Looking at this in detail, the HLSS considers an annual need of 343 dwellings, resulting in a total requirement once the 20% has been applied of 2,058 dwellings. However, applying the latest guidance and the Standard Method, the Borough's housing requirement is 452 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% buffer, this results in a five year requirement of 2,712 dwellings. In terms of supply, the HLSS includes sites without detailed planning permission and
without evidence such sites will be delivered within five years. As per the NPPF, such
sites cannot be considerable deliverable for the purposes of the five-year housing land supply. Table 1 of the HLSS suggests that at least 1,042 dwellings in the reported supply did not have planning permission. Once these are removed from the supply calculation, the five-year supply comprises just 653 dwellings. It is unclear how many of the dwellings categorised as having extant planning permission are on major sites which only benefit from outline permission. Such sites would also have to be discounted. As such, the figure of 653 dwellings may overstate housing supply. A five-year supply of 653 dwellings compared to a requirement of 2,712 represents a 1.2-year housing land supply. The acute housing land supply shortage underlines the importance of allocating sites through the Local Plan which can deliver early in the plan period, and the need to avoid over reliance on large strategic sites which inevitably take a considerable time to bring forward. The housing trajectory provided as Appendix 1 to the PSLP projects that it will enable completion of 2,305 dwellings between 2019/20 and 2023/24 (or, to be precise, it projects 2,305.1 dwellings). Having regard to the Standard Method and the need to apply a 20% buffer to the housing requirement, the total five-year requirement for the Borough is 2,712 dwellings. Therefore, even before critical review of the supply, the PSLP will not provide a five-year supply of housing. Furthermore, and in respect of the projected supply, we are concerned to note that
Dunton Hills Garden Village is projected to delivery housing completions from 2022/23, i.e. falling within the first five years of the plan. Dunton Hills Garden Village is a proposed major strategic development, intended to provide 4,000 dwellings, 5.5 hectares of employment land, two new primary schools, secondary school, new village shopping centre, new transport infrastructure, and new community and health infrastructure. Delivery will require the coordination and input of multiple landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders. The site has yet to even be allocated. Once allocated, the PSLP proposes a masterplan and design guidance will be required to be prepared. Following this, an outline application will need to be prepared, submitted, and determined; followed by reserved matters. It will also be necessary to discharge all planning conditions and S106 obligations. All of this before development has even begun. The ability of larger sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin review (2018) and issues with their complexity have been ably set out in the Lichfield Study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematic due to a range of factors, including establishing the required infrastructure, and the timings of housing delivery associated with those requirements as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Litchfield's report confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5yrs for the planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for sites over 1,000 units. For the above reasons it is unrealistic to project that 100 homes will be completed at
Dunton Hills Garden Village as early as 2022/23. This does not in itself mean that
Dunton Hills Garden Village proposals cannot form part of a sound Local Plan, but it
does mean that additional smaller sites capable of providing homes in the early years of the plan period also need to be allocated in order to ensure the Local Plan is sound. The strategic sites are expected to deliver 1555 dwellings within 5yrs of adoption. Given the matters set out above, this is unrealistic and it would not be justified to rely on these sites to meet short term housing delivery. This emphasises the need to review sites such as ref. 078 to provide for more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery, to ensure the plan is Sound. Ingatestone is defined as a Category 2 Settlement. The Borough defines Category 2
settlements as larger villages in a rural setting, with high levels of accessibility and public transport provision, including rail services. These settlements provide a range of services and facilities to the immediate residential areas and nearby settlements. The PSLP states that appropriate urban extension and brownfield development
opportunities will be encouraged to meet local needs. In 2011, Ingatestone had a population of 4,812 (Census; 2011). It is the Borough's largest village, with a modest level of facilities, including a secondary school. Furthermore, Ingatestone Railway Station is located within the village, and provides frequent railway services to London Liverpool Street, Stratford (London), Chelmsford, Colchester and other surrounding settlements. The PSLP confirms that although Ingatestone has relatively good facilities, a modest level of development is envisaged, due to infrastructure constraints and a lack of suitable sites. As such, only two sites have been allocated for residential development in the PSLP -R21 and R22. This results in a total of 218 dwellings for Ingatestone over the plan period. Site 078 has previously been defined in the HELAA (2018) as suitable, available and achievable site for residential development. The PSLP in this case is flawed, as it doesn't appropriately consider Site 078 as a suitable site for residential development. It is considered that the PSLP fails to support the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The
failure to thoroughly consider Site 078 for residential development is unjustified. To ensure the Local Plan is sound, further suitable sites within Ingatestone should be
allocated to ensure the sustainable growth of Ingatestone. The site measures at approximately 1.8ha and could support the development of up to 54 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement boundary, on land,
which is currently allocated as Green Belt. The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north and south and the B1002 to the west. To the eastern boundary of the site are agricultural fields. A considerable amount of technical work has been undertaken in respect of land south of the B1002 and has previously been submitted to the Council through previous stages of the plan-making process. The technical work undertaken demonstrates that the site is sustainable, suitable, available and achievable and its development would help meet the Borough's housing need. Work undertaken, and previously provided is included in this representation for completeness: * Proposed Site Plan prepared by Grafik (Appendix B); * Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix C); * Landscape Advisory Plan prepared by Nigel Cowlin (Appendix D); * Access Appraisal by Ardent Engineers (Appendix E). In previous representations submitted to the Council, we have commented specifically on the proposals for layout and landscaping, providing that the site would be allocated for residential development by the Council. A Feasibility Layout prepared by Graffik Architecture has previously been submitted to the Council and is included within this representation for completeness. The feasibility study demonstrates how 54 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The layout illustrates how the site could provide infill development to the already existing settlement of Ingatestone, without adversely harming the landscape character of the area or the character of Ingatestone itself. The Feasibility Layout also shows the potential proposals for landscaping on site. These proposals have been formed through careful consideration of the existing landscape character of Ingatestone and in line with the Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscape Advisory Plan which has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin. The report and plan also accompany this representation. As set out above, a Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report and Landscaping Advisory Plan has been prepared by Nigel Cowlin and accompanies this representation. It is proposed that there is to be retained and enhanced landscaping on site, specifically to the eastern and southern boundaries. This landscaping proposal takes into account the Grade II Listed Building - Rays - which is located beyond the eastern boundary of the site. By proposing dense planting at this boundary, it will ensure that the development proposal has no adverse effect on the nearby listed building. The Feasibility Layout also illustrates that planting will be retained at the western boundary of the site at the High Street, where access to the site is proposed. Furthermore, it is illustrated that the existing oak tree at the western part of the site will be retained to provide a substantial area of open space on the site. The Scoping Report suggests that these simple design controls and landscape mitigation measures, such as the protection of existing field boundary hedgerows, along with retaining an open space around the mature Oak Tree at the front of the site, would help to ensure that the proposed development would be as successful as possible in landscape and visual terms. The Scoping Report found that the visual influence of the site to surrounding locations was found to be limited due to the built up nature of the surrounding area, for example the ribbon development to the north and the settlement edge of Ingatestone to the south. The report states that development of the site should be considered as a logical area for infill development along the B1002. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004) requires SA/SEAs to inter alia set out the reasons for the selection of preferred alternatives, and the rejections of others, be made set out. In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance4 makes clear that the strategic
environmental assessment should outline the reasons the alternatives were selected,
the reasons the rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives. Sustainability Appraisal of the PSLP has been published: the Sustainability Appraisal of the Brentwood Local Plan January 2019 (the SA). Paragraph 5.5.31 of the SA confirms that Site 078 is listed as 1 of 5 omission sites in the HELAA as it is "deliverable or developable". The SA confirms that the two sites with the greatest potential for allocation are the adjacent "Parklands" Sites (Ref: 078 and Ref: 243), at the northern boundary of the village. The SA states that the accompanying Green Belt Review found that both sites contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt to a 'moderate' extent, however neither site is fully contained in the landscape. The SA concludes that the option of adding one or more omission sites was determined as "unreasonable", for the purposes of establishing reasonable spatial alternatives. No details are provided to explain in what way Site 078 is considered not to be fully contained in the landscape. Furthermore, as per Section 3 of this representation, the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report confirms that further planting can be provided on site at all boundaries, thus ensuring it is a contained site. The proposed planting would be effective in appropriately screening the proposed development and ensuring the village character of Ingatestone is retained. In short, the SA does not provide a justified reason for the rejection of the site. Turning to the specifics of the SA assessment of the site, these are set out in Table C of the SA. This provides a 'traffic light' assessment of sites' sustainability. Green indicates sites perform well; amber - poorly; red- particularly poorly; against specific criteria. Our first point in relation to the approach taken is that it is very simplistic - the assessment of site appears to be based purely on physical distance to various features / facilities / designations. For example, in relation to criteria 10 (Conservation Area), our site is considered to score 'poorly'. Part of Ingatestone High Street is defined as a Conservation Area, however site 078 is not within this designation and is located at least 400m from the defined Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development of the site would not unacceptably impact the Conservation Area. Furthermore, in relation to criteria 1 (Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located approximately 1 mile from AQMA BRW6 at the A12/Fryerning Lane. It is considered that the AQMA will not be adversely impacted by the site, given the distance between the two. In relation to criteria 8 (Primary School), the site is considered to score 'poorly'. The site is located 0.5 miles from both an infant and junior school. It is considered that the primary school provisions within Ingatestone are within walking distance to the site and the site should not be scored as 'poorly' in relation to this criterion. As per the reasons above, we therefore consider the SA's assessment to be flawed. A Green Belt Study and Assessment has been undertaken by Crestwood Environmental
Ltd as part of the Regulation 19 Consultation. The Assessment looks to assess specific green belt parcels in relation to the 4 purposes of the Green Belt. These are: Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging in to one another; Purpose 3 - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Following this assessment, the parcel is given an overall assessment rating. The ratings are; Low; Low-Moderate; Moderate; Moderate - High; High. Site 078 is within Parcel 9A of the Green Belt Assessment. Parcel 9a includes land to the northeast of Ingatestone. The parcel size is 41.94ha. Purpose 1: Parcel 9a is defined by the Council as 'Partly Contained', as it abuts a large built up area. The assessment states that the 'Partly Contained' sites have weak/degraded/unclear boundaries. This is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. Site 078 has clear natural boundaries at the east and to the south. Furthermore, as detailed at Section 3, further planting is proposed at the site in order to contain the proposed development. Purpose 2: Parcel 9a has been assessed as an 'Important Countryside Gap'. The Assessment
states that the parcel forms either a large proportion of countryside gaps between towns or the development of the site would result in the physical narrowing of the gap and potential visual coalescence. As per the accompanying Landscape and Visual Issues Scoping Report, it is considered that the site would result in a coherent infill development between two existing areas of developed land. The Scoping Report also confirms that the proposed development of the site wold not result in the coalescence of Margaretting and Ingatestone. Purpose 3: Parcel 9a has been assessed as 'Functional Countryside' (FC). This again, is an overall assessment of the parcel and not specifically of Site 078. As such, we do not agree that Site 078 can be defined as Functional Countryside. The site is between existing development and can therefore be considered as an infill site. Purpose 4: The assessment states that Parcel 9A has a 'limited relationship with Historic Town'. We agree with this assessment. Overall Brentwood Borough Council have assessed Parcel 9a, as having a 'moderate' contribution to the 4 purposes of Green Belt. The above review of Parcel 9a recognises that this assessment is not necessarily reflective of the qualities of every site within the parcel. In respect of this, we wish to highlight the findings of the Inspector in the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, which we consider helpful in the consideration of the PSLP. Following the Stage 1 and 2 hearing sessions at Welwyn Hatfield, the Inspector provided a note to the Council in December 2017 on its approach to review of the Green Belt (EX39 of the Welywn Hatfield Local Plan Examination). Within this note, the Inspector stated: "The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of
Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks ... I pointed
out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas." "Additionally, the phase 2 Green Belt Review, which did look at a finer grain of sites,
does not appear to have examined all of the potential development sites adjacent to
the urban areas..." "The actual development strategy finally arrived at is a matter for the Council... However, if that strategy fails to meet the FOAHN and assuming that all realistic development opportunities outside of the Green Belt have been put forward in the plan, then it is effectively saying that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying a further release of additional land from the Green Belt and that presumably means for as long as current national green belt policy and its interpretation prevails. That may be the case but unless all of the Green Belt has been forensically analysed in some detail then it is difficult to prove." Having regard to all of the above, key issues to consider include: * Whether all potential sites' impact on the Green Belt has been assessed; * Whether such assessment was undertaken at a sufficiently fine grain to properly consider individual sites' impact on the Green Belt.In respect of the PSLP, it is clear that not all potential development sites were subject to a sufficiently detailed analysis which could enable BBC to justifiably conclude it has identified a reasonable strategy to meet its housing needs, particularly where the plan is not meeting those needs in full. At the very least, there was one site that was not properly assessed: Land to the South of the B1002, Ingatestone. The Council's own evidence base states that Site 078 is suitable, available and achievable for residential development. Development of the site is supported by technical evidence that confirms its suitability, including in relation to the lack of harm to the landscape and Green Belt. The reasons given for the rejection of the Site are based on erroneous conclusions in the evidence base and should be re-examined. The rejection of Site 078 is unjustified, and overlooks an opportunity to correct other soundness deficiencies in respect of the Local Plan, including in relation to the overall quantum of housing proposed in Ingatestone. The allocation of Site 078 for development will assist in curing defects in respect of the
Local Plan, enabling it to be a sound plan.

These representations are submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Stonebond Properties Ltd. in relation to the Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Proposed Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) (PSLP), and in particular with regards to our client's land interests at Stocks Lane, Kelvedon Hatch. This is proposed for allocation under Policy R24 of the PSLP. Plans showing the site are included within the Vision Document at Appendix A to this representation. As the Council will be aware, representations have previously been made on behalf of the landowner, W H Norris & Sons, in respect of the land at Stocks Lane, most recently as part of the Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation in March 2018. Since then the site has come into the control of Stonebond Properties Ltd, a local housing developer with considerable experience of bringing forward high quality homes on small and medium sites. As a result of the previous representations and discussions with officers at Brentwood Borough Council alongside the Local Plan process, this site and land at Blackmore Road (Site R23, Brize's Corner Field, also now under Stonebond Properties' control) have been proposed as sites for future residential development within PSLP. Stonebond's overall position is one of firm support for the PSLP and this is expressed where relevant in these representations, albeit with some overarching concerns, notably in relation to certain elements of the Policy R24 in relation to the amount of development, the expected time for delivery in the Plan period and certain elements of the PSLP's Development Management Policies. Where such concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist in BBC making the Plan more robust and improving its soundness in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy. Stonebond Properties request 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. Settlement Hierarchy: Kelvedon Hatch is confirmed as a Category 3 Larger Village as set out in the Settlement Hierarchy shown at figure 2.3 of PSLP. It states that these villages are characterised by the amount of amenities and services able to cater for residents' day to day needs. Kelvedon Hatch has a local centre with a range of services, facilities, access to public transport, and education services. The PSLP sets out that Category 3 settlements should seek to make the most of brownfield redevelopment opportunities, while limited urban extensions will be encouraged to meet local needs where appropriate. The population is stated as 2,124, making Kelvedon Hatch the second largest Category 3 Settlement behind Doddinghurst. Due to the proximity of Doddinghurst (around 1km to the east), there is a reciprocal relationship between the two villages in terms of the availability and access to services and other facilities. As a result, development at Kelvedon Hatch is clearly a sustainable location to which a proportion of the Borough's housing need should be directed. In addition, as an established community, it is important that the Local Plan provides for the growth of the settlement to ensure the vitality of the community is sustained or enhanced. In line with Paragraph 78 of the NPPF, growth in one village may have the added benefit of further supporting opportunities and growth in nearby surrounding villages. The two sites for additional housing in Kelvedon Hatch identified in the PSLP at Land at Stocks Lane (R24) and west at Blackmore Road (R23) are fully supported. The proposed allocation of these two sites is considered to be justified, consistent with national policy and necessary to ensure the sustainable growth of Kelvedon Hatch and the Borough for reasons set out elsewhere in these representations. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives: Vision for the Borough: The Vision for the Borough set out at Section 3 of the PSLP is supported. For the reasons set out in these representations, carefully planned development at Kelvedon Hatch as provided for at Policies R23 and R24 will make an important contribution to BBC's housing needs to meet the Local Plan objectives. Indeed, these representations and those relating to R24 make the case that a modest and justified increase in the sites' ability to accommodate more homes will assist meet those aims and provide for greater flexibility in meeting housing needs. Stonebond Properties have undertaken detailed site assessments. These confirm that there are no barriers to delivery of development. As a consequence, the expressed objectives of development in the Vision to be landscape-led responding to a "design and build with nature approach firmly embedding high quality green infrastructure through public realm to create a seamless transition to our surrounding countryside" can all be achieved and delivered in the allocation of sites R23 and R24. This is demonstrated in the accompanying Vision Documents to this representation for R24. Managing Growth - Policy SP02: Managing Growth: Policy SP02 proposes a total of 7,752 dwellings be provided in the Borough between 2011 and 2033 with 310 homes per year to 2022/23 and then 584 per year from 2022/23 taking forward a "stepped delivery" approach to deal with a projected shortfall in the first 5 years of the PSLP. This is mainly because a greater proportion of homes to be delivered in the PSLP comprise sites located in the Green Belt, resulting in longer lead in times to delivery. Whilst we do not raise objections in principle to the stepped approach as far as our clients are concerned there is a prospect that some sites in the Green Belt have the prospect of coming forward earlier, particularly smaller and medium sized developments. This certainly includes this site R24, and R23 that is the subject of a separate representation. This matter is dealt with further at Section 8 below. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the stepped approach proposed, there are still issues with BBC's over-optimistic estimates and assumptions on the delivery of larger strategic sites proposed for allocation in the PSLP. BBC are effectively placing most of its "eggs in one basket." in the range of sites that are proposed in the PSLP. It is important to note that, of the new allocations, 4,578 homes are made up of strategic allocations (of which 2,700 are at Dunton Hills Garden Village and are to be delivered in the Plan period) and 1,510 are other allocations The strategic sites therefore represent 68% of the total number of new homes of which some 59% are allocated at Dunton Hills. The ability of larger strategic sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin Review (2018); and issues with their complexity, have been ably set out in the Lichfield's study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematical due to a range of factors, including establishing required infrastructure requirements and the timing of housing delivery associated with those requirements, as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Lichfield's report confirms that the planning process takes, on average, 2.5 years for the planning application determination period for up to 500 units; this can double for sites over 1,000 units. Two of the strategic sites within the PSLP's allocations also comprise developed sites currently in employment uses. The strategic sites are expected to deliver some 1555 homes within 5 years of an assumed adoption in 2020/21. Given the issues set out above it is considered that this is unrealistic and it would not be justified or the most appropriate strategy to rely on these sites for short term housing delivery. It therefore emphasises the need to review the ability of smaller or medium sized sites such as R23 and R24 to provide for greater flexibility and more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery to ensure the Local Plan is sound. Sequential Land Use: Paragraph 4.22 and 4.23 of the PSLP suggested that a sequential approach is to be taken to the determination of planning applications, referring only to prioritising brownfield land in urban areas and brownfield land in the Green Belt. The reasons for this are unclear when the PSLP strategy includes releasing land from the Green Belt to meet development needs which includes the sites the subject of these representations. The growth requirements set out by Policy SP02, and the sequential approach to meeting those requirements are referred to at paragraph 3.23, provide for the justification for the chosen spatial strategy. As a consequence, it is not justified to suggest that a sequential test be taken for the determination of planning applications and paras 4.22 and 4.23 should be deleted from the PSLP. SP04 - Developer Contributions: There are no objections to the general approach expressed in Policy SP04 for developer contributions. However, section E is nether precise, necessary or justified and could be open to misinterpretation. It is therefore recommended that this be omitted. Resilient Built Environment: We are generally supportive of the Council's objectives to achieve a resilient built environment. Nevertheless, there are concerns that the policies set out in the PSLP and as drafted may have an impact on viability, deliverability and affordability for housing development generally. We are aware of the representations made by the House Builders Federation (HBF) referring to sustainable construction (BE020), allotments (BE20), Green and Blue Infrastructure (BE18), access to nature (BE19), digital infrastructure (BE10), open space (BE22), electrical vehicle charging (BE15), housing quality (HP06). The implications of the requirements set out do not appear to have been fully considered as part of the viability assessment. As a consequence, we would suggest that the viability assessment for the PSLP is revisited to reflect on these requirements to better inform or provide clarity on the proposed policies. Policy BE01 - Future Proofing: Whilst the Council's objectives towards future proofing of development are broadly supported, it is questionable whether it is necessary to set out a detailed planning policy to this effect when a number of the criteria set out comprise a series of aspirations. It is of some concern that Part A of the Policy requires that all applications must take into account....... when the process of development management and determination of applications is far more prescriptive and binary in decision making. As a consequence, it is suggested that Policy BE01 should be set out as supporting text rather than a specific policy. Policy BE02 - Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency: Whilst the Council's objectives towards sustainable construction and resource efficiency are broadly supported, it is questionable whether it is necessary to set out a detailed planning policy to this effect when a number of the criteria set out comprise a series of aspirations. The requirement to submit details of measures that increase resilience to the threat of climate change at b. is also considered to be over prescriptive when such techniques may vary substantially. The general principles set out at para 5.19 are reflective of the fact that these matters ought more properly to be dealt with by supporting text rather than a specific policy. In addition, we are aware of comments made by the HBF on this policy and we support those comments. Policy BE20 - Allotments and Community Food Growing Space: Whilst the Council's aspirations for providing allotments are acknowledged, the policy as set out provides for no clear thresholds as to when such space should be provided which is not justified in the terms set out. On this basis, it is recommended that the policy should either be omitted and dealt with by the text to the PSLP or justified against thresholds or site specific requirements. In this respect, it may be that large strategic sites may need to include a requirement but it is certainly not necessary for smaller or medium sized sites, such as those the subject of these representations. Policy BE22 - Open Space in New Development: The policy is broadly supported. As can be seen from the Vision document that accompanies these representations, our proposed scheme for R24 makes provision for such space. It is nevertheless questionable whether it is necessary for all open space to be fully equipped (D.). The need for equipped space should also be related to the amount of development proposed and/or availability or local equipped areas. As a consequence, it is recommended that criteria D is amended to be refined to provide clarity on when equipped open space is required eg. on sites over 50 homes. Housing Provision: Policy HP01 - Housing Mix: The Council's approach to providing for an appropriate mix of dwelling types is generally supported. However, the Policy as set out refers to the Borough wide requirements in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and does not necessarily take into account a local area or sub area within the Borough. It is important to note that the SHMA requirements, at Figure 6.1, confirms that it is an indicative mix guide for market housing. It is also noted that para 6.5 confirms that the final mix will be subject to negotiation. This is welcomed on the basis that some flexibility will be necessary in certain circumstances as part of the planning application process. As a consequence, it is suggested that para 6.5 should provide greater clarity and a minor change confirming that the final mix will be subject to negotiation "as part of a planning application" rather than "with the applicant". We are aware of the representations submitted by HBF regarding accessible homes and justification. We support those views. It is questionable whether it is necessary for the PSLP to set out in planning policy the requirements of Building Regulations. Policy HP03 - Residential Density: We support the PSLP's approach to residential density as set out in Policy HP03. This is considered to be justified based on the evidence and consistent with the national policy. As far as our client's land interests are concerned at R23 and R24, both sites are capable of providing an increased density to that expressed for the relevant policies R23 and R24. However, part B of the policy quite properly acknowledges that a chosen density should take into account the character of the surrounding area and other site constraints. This is supported. A further explanation of suggested density or yield for R24 is set out at Section 8 below. Policy HP05 - Affordable Housing: We note that the SHMA provides justification for the affordable housing requirements. However, it is questionable whether the precise tenure/mix should be set out at B(a) of the Policy, given that requirements can change relatively quickly over time and the prescriptive approach may not take into account precise local needs. As a consequence, it is recommended that the criteria under B(a) should omit the reference to 86% and 14% proportions. It is suggested, in the alternative, that "the mix, size, type and cost of affordable homes will meet the identified housing needs of the Council's area and local needs as appropriate, established by housing need assessments including the SHMA". Design and Place-making: The approach set out in the PSLP for design and place-making is broadly supported. However, we note that there are effectively seven policies (HP12 - HP18) which provide the requirements against these matters. We also note that there are some areas of repetition on some of the objectives against those policies. We consider that those commenting on and determining applications should preferably have one or two identified policies to refer to and/or applicable thresholds to more succinctly set out requirements. This would ensure that planning applications can be more effectively judged against context, design and place-shaping criteria. Natural Environment: We generally support the Council's approach to Green Belt and the identification of suitable sites to meet the Council's housing and other needs. Accompanying these representations is an overview of the Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity considerations relating to Stonebond's land interests at R23 and R24 to confirm the suitability of removing those sites from the Green Belt and limited impact on the landscape. Policy NE13 - Site Allocations in the Green Belt: We welcome the PSLP's intentions to remove sites R23 and R24 from the Green Belt. This calls into question the need for Policy NE13. The requirements set out by criterion A and B are dealt with by other policies in the Plan. If there are site specific requirements relating to sites, these should be covered within the specific policies relating to those sites. Site Allocations: Policy R24 - Land off Stocks Lane: The proposed allocation of Land off Stocks Lane as Policy R24 and its removal from the Green Belt is considered sound and is fully supported. It has been established through the evidence base supporting the PSLP that Kelvedon Hatch is a sustainable location to accommodate a modest amount of new houses to contribute to the Borough's housing needs. Indeed, as recognised by para 68 of the NPPF and as a medium sized site, such sites make an important contribution to "meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built out quickly". We do however have some concerns with the amount of development set out at A of the Policy and the indicative yield at page 340 and the suggested trajectory for the site at Appendix 1. These matters are dealt with below. Supporting these representations is a Vision Document at Appendix A, a review of Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity at Appendix B and a Summary Drainage and Utility Appraisal at Appendix C. These all confirm that the development at the site is both justified and fully deliverable within the terms of para 67a) of the NPPF. The Vision Document demonstrates that careful consideration has been given to the emerging policies set out at BE01, BE08, BE22, as well as those relating to Design and Place-making at HP12, HP13, HP14, HP15 and HP18 of the PSLP to confirm that a scheme can meet the PSLP objectives in this regard. The Summary Drainage and Utility Appraisal at Appendix B confirms that there are no constraints to delivery. In addition, Stonebond Properties commissioned a transport appraisal from Ardent Consulting Engineers. This has confirmed that the location of the access shown in the Vision Document meets normal highway requirements in terms of safety and visability. This has been confirmed in speed surveys undertaken in Stocks Lane. The Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment at Appendix B confirms that the release of the site from the Green Belt is justified. It also confirms that there would be no significant impact on the surrounding landscape. Part A of Policy R24 suggests that there be provision for around 30 new homes on the site. Part A Policy HP03 of the PSLP requires proposals to take a design led approach to density to ensure schemes are sympathetic to local character and make efficient use of land. Part B expects development to achieve a net density of at least 35dph unless the special character of the surrounding area suggests that such densities would be inappropriate. The suggested amount of 30 homes set out for Policy R24 does not currently reflect these requirements or provide an accurate representation of what is achievable on site. 30 homes represent 18.6dph which clearly does not represent an efficient or effective use of the land contrary to the objectives of HP03 and the supporting text set out at 6.18 to 6.20 and 6.22. The Vision Document confirms that around 45 homes can actually be provided on the site representing a far more efficient and effective dwelling yield. 45 homes would represent a density of approximately 28dph. Whilst this does not achieve 35dph, the Vision Document demonstrates that full account has been taken of the objectives of HP03 to ensure that a scheme would be sympathetic to local character. Critically, the illustrative scheme shows provision for open space within the site to meet the objectives of Policies HP13 and BE22. These policies provide for functional on-site open space. As such, achieving a greater density would be problematical. In addition, it is important to note that the site is on the edge of the settlement where there is a need for sensitivity, having regard to the countryside to the east and south. Para 6.22 of the PSLP confirms that efficient land use is critical to the delivery of this Plan for the reasons set out at Sections 4 and 6 above against this background, it is recommended that amendments are made as follows: Policy R24A - substitute 30 new homes with 45 new homes; Page R24 - indicative dwelling yield substitute 30 with 45. At para 9.195 the PSLP suggests the development would take its access from Blackmore Road. This is an error. The paragraph should be amended to refer to Stocks Lane. The site is within the control of Stonebond Properties, a local house builder with considerable experience in the development of medium sized sites, quick delivery and achieving high design and layout standards. Upon removal from the Green Belt and grant of a planning permission, it would be expected that development at the site could commence 2020/21 and be completed within two years of the Plan. As a consequence, it is recommended that the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory at Appendix 1 is amended to provide for the following based on an increased number of homes as set out in these representations: Year 5 - 2020/21 = 10; Year 6 - 2021/22 = 35. These comments on Policy R24 provide greater certainty on delivery of the site. In addition, the changes suggested would contribute to the issues we have identified elsewhere with the PSLP specifically in relation to the supply and delivery of homes generally. As a result, we trust that the Council will be able to agree modifications/changes accordingly.

Need to review the ability of smaller or medium sized sites such as R23 and R24 to provide for greater flexibility and more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery to ensure the Local Plan is sound.

These representations are submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Stonebond Properties Ltd. in relation to the Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Proposed Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) (PSLP), and in particular with regards to our client's land interests at Stocks Lane, Kelvedon Hatch. This is proposed for allocation under Policy R24 of the PSLP. Plans showing the site are included within the Vision Document at Appendix A to this representation. As the Council will be aware, representations have previously been made on behalf of the landowner, W H Norris & Sons, in respect of the land at Stocks Lane, most recently as part of the Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation in March 2018. Since then the site has come into the control of Stonebond Properties Ltd, a local housing developer with considerable experience of bringing forward high quality homes on small and medium sites. As a result of the previous representations and discussions with officers at Brentwood Borough Council alongside the Local Plan process, this site and land at Blackmore Road (Site R23, Brize's Corner Field, also now under Stonebond Properties' control) have been proposed as sites for future residential development within PSLP. Stonebond's overall position is one of firm support for the PSLP and this is expressed where relevant in these representations, albeit with some overarching concerns, notably in relation to certain elements of the Policy R24 in relation to the amount of development, the expected time for delivery in the Plan period and certain elements of the PSLP's Development Management Policies. Where such concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist in BBC making the Plan more robust and improving its soundness in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy. Stonebond Properties request 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. Settlement Hierarchy: Kelvedon Hatch is confirmed as a Category 3 Larger Village as set out in the Settlement Hierarchy shown at figure 2.3 of PSLP. It states that these villages are characterised by the amount of amenities and services able to cater for residents' day to day needs. Kelvedon Hatch has a local centre with a range of services, facilities, access to public transport, and education services. The PSLP sets out that Category 3 settlements should seek to make the most of brownfield redevelopment opportunities, while limited urban extensions will be encouraged to meet local needs where appropriate. The population is stated as 2,124, making Kelvedon Hatch the second largest Category 3 Settlement behind Doddinghurst. Due to the proximity of Doddinghurst (around 1km to the east), there is a reciprocal relationship between the two villages in terms of the availability and access to services and other facilities. As a result, development at Kelvedon Hatch is clearly a sustainable location to which a proportion of the Borough's housing need should be directed. In addition, as an established community, it is important that the Local Plan provides for the growth of the settlement to ensure the vitality of the community is sustained or enhanced. In line with Paragraph 78 of the NPPF, growth in one village may have the added benefit of further supporting opportunities and growth in nearby surrounding villages. The two sites for additional housing in Kelvedon Hatch identified in the PSLP at Land at Stocks Lane (R24) and west at Blackmore Road (R23) are fully supported. The proposed allocation of these two sites is considered to be justified, consistent with national policy and necessary to ensure the sustainable growth of Kelvedon Hatch and the Borough for reasons set out elsewhere in these representations. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives: Vision for the Borough: The Vision for the Borough set out at Section 3 of the PSLP is supported. For the reasons set out in these representations, carefully planned development at Kelvedon Hatch as provided for at Policies R23 and R24 will make an important contribution to BBC's housing needs to meet the Local Plan objectives. Indeed, these representations and those relating to R24 make the case that a modest and justified increase in the sites' ability to accommodate more homes will assist meet those aims and provide for greater flexibility in meeting housing needs. Stonebond Properties have undertaken detailed site assessments. These confirm that there are no barriers to delivery of development. As a consequence, the expressed objectives of development in the Vision to be landscape-led responding to a "design and build with nature approach firmly embedding high quality green infrastructure through public realm to create a seamless transition to our surrounding countryside" can all be achieved and delivered in the allocation of sites R23 and R24. This is demonstrated in the accompanying Vision Documents to this representation for R24. Managing Growth - Policy SP02: Managing Growth: Policy SP02 proposes a total of 7,752 dwellings be provided in the Borough between 2011 and 2033 with 310 homes per year to 2022/23 and then 584 per year from 2022/23 taking forward a "stepped delivery" approach to deal with a projected shortfall in the first 5 years of the PSLP. This is mainly because a greater proportion of homes to be delivered in the PSLP comprise sites located in the Green Belt, resulting in longer lead in times to delivery. Whilst we do not raise objections in principle to the stepped approach as far as our clients are concerned there is a prospect that some sites in the Green Belt have the prospect of coming forward earlier, particularly smaller and medium sized developments. This certainly includes this site R24, and R23 that is the subject of a separate representation. This matter is dealt with further at Section 8 below. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the stepped approach proposed, there are still issues with BBC's over-optimistic estimates and assumptions on the delivery of larger strategic sites proposed for allocation in the PSLP. BBC are effectively placing most of its "eggs in one basket." in the range of sites that are proposed in the PSLP. It is important to note that, of the new allocations, 4,578 homes are made up of strategic allocations (of which 2,700 are at Dunton Hills Garden Village and are to be delivered in the Plan period) and 1,510 are other allocations The strategic sites therefore represent 68% of the total number of new homes of which some 59% are allocated at Dunton Hills. The ability of larger strategic sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin Review (2018); and issues with their complexity, have been ably set out in the Lichfield's study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematical due to a range of factors, including establishing required infrastructure requirements and the timing of housing delivery associated with those requirements, as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Lichfield's report confirms that the planning process takes, on average, 2.5 years for the planning application determination period for up to 500 units; this can double for sites over 1,000 units. Two of the strategic sites within the PSLP's allocations also comprise developed sites currently in employment uses. The strategic sites are expected to deliver some 1555 homes within 5 years of an assumed adoption in 2020/21. Given the issues set out above it is considered that this is unrealistic and it would not be justified or the most appropriate strategy to rely on these sites for short term housing delivery. It therefore emphasises the need to review the ability of smaller or medium sized sites such as R23 and R24 to provide for greater flexibility and more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery to ensure the Local Plan is sound. Sequential Land Use: Paragraph 4.22 and 4.23 of the PSLP suggested that a sequential approach is to be taken to the determination of planning applications, referring only to prioritising brownfield land in urban areas and brownfield land in the Green Belt. The reasons for this are unclear when the PSLP strategy includes releasing land from the Green Belt to meet development needs which includes the sites the subject of these representations. The growth requirements set out by Policy SP02, and the sequential approach to meeting those requirements are referred to at paragraph 3.23, provide for the justification for the chosen spatial strategy. As a consequence, it is not justified to suggest that a sequential test be taken for the determination of planning applications and paras 4.22 and 4.23 should be deleted from the PSLP. SP04 - Developer Contributions: There are no objections to the general approach expressed in Policy SP04 for developer contributions. However, section E is nether precise, necessary or justified and could be open to misinterpretation. It is therefore recommended that this be omitted. Resilient Built Environment: We are generally supportive of the Council's objectives to achieve a resilient built environment. Nevertheless, there are concerns that the policies set out in the PSLP and as drafted may have an impact on viability, deliverability and affordability for housing development generally. We are aware of the representations made by the House Builders Federation (HBF) referring to sustainable construction (BE020), allotments (BE20), Green and Blue Infrastructure (BE18), access to nature (BE19), digital infrastructure (BE10), open space (BE22), electrical vehicle charging (BE15), housing quality (HP06). The implications of the requirements set out do not appear to have been fully considered as part of the viability assessment. As a consequence, we would suggest that the viability assessment for the PSLP is revisited to reflect on these requirements to better inform or provide clarity on the proposed policies. Policy BE01 - Future Proofing: Whilst the Council's objectives towards future proofing of development are broadly supported, it is questionable whether it is necessary to set out a detailed planning policy to this effect when a number of the criteria set out comprise a series of aspirations. It is of some concern that Part A of the Policy requires that all applications must take into account....... when the process of development management and determination of applications is far more prescriptive and binary in decision making. As a consequence, it is suggested that Policy BE01 should be set out as supporting text rather than a specific policy. Policy BE02 - Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency: Whilst the Council's objectives towards sustainable construction and resource efficiency are broadly supported, it is questionable whether it is necessary to set out a detailed planning policy to this effect when a number of the criteria set out comprise a series of aspirations. The requirement to submit details of measures that increase resilience to the threat of climate change at b. is also considered to be over prescriptive when such techniques may vary substantially. The general principles set out at para 5.19 are reflective of the fact that these matters ought more properly to be dealt with by supporting text rather than a specific policy. In addition, we are aware of comments made by the HBF on this policy and we support those comments. Policy BE20 - Allotments and Community Food Growing Space: Whilst the Council's aspirations for providing allotments are acknowledged, the policy as set out provides for no clear thresholds as to when such space should be provided which is not justified in the terms set out. On this basis, it is recommended that the policy should either be omitted and dealt with by the text to the PSLP or justified against thresholds or site specific requirements. In this respect, it may be that large strategic sites may need to include a requirement but it is certainly not necessary for smaller or medium sized sites, such as those the subject of these representations. Policy BE22 - Open Space in New Development: The policy is broadly supported. As can be seen from the Vision document that accompanies these representations, our proposed scheme for R24 makes provision for such space. It is nevertheless questionable whether it is necessary for all open space to be fully equipped (D.). The need for equipped space should also be related to the amount of development proposed and/or availability or local equipped areas. As a consequence, it is recommended that criteria D is amended to be refined to provide clarity on when equipped open space is required eg. on sites over 50 homes. Housing Provision: Policy HP01 - Housing Mix: The Council's approach to providing for an appropriate mix of dwelling types is generally supported. However, the Policy as set out refers to the Borough wide requirements in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and does not necessarily take into account a local area or sub area within the Borough. It is important to note that the SHMA requirements, at Figure 6.1, confirms that it is an indicative mix guide for market housing. It is also noted that para 6.5 confirms that the final mix will be subject to negotiation. This is welcomed on the basis that some flexibility will be necessary in certain circumstances as part of the planning application process. As a consequence, it is suggested that para 6.5 should provide greater clarity and a minor change confirming that the final mix will be subject to negotiation "as part of a planning application" rather than "with the applicant". We are aware of the representations submitted by HBF regarding accessible homes and justification. We support those views. It is questionable whether it is necessary for the PSLP to set out in planning policy the requirements of Building Regulations. Policy HP03 - Residential Density: We support the PSLP's approach to residential density as set out in Policy HP03. This is considered to be justified based on the evidence and consistent with the national policy. As far as our client's land interests are concerned at R23 and R24, both sites are capable of providing an increased density to that expressed for the relevant policies R23 and R24. However, part B of the policy quite properly acknowledges that a chosen density should take into account the character of the surrounding area and other site constraints. This is supported. A further explanation of suggested density or yield for R24 is set out at Section 8 below. Policy HP05 - Affordable Housing: We note that the SHMA provides justification for the affordable housing requirements. However, it is questionable whether the precise tenure/mix should be set out at B(a) of the Policy, given that requirements can change relatively quickly over time and the prescriptive approach may not take into account precise local needs. As a consequence, it is recommended that the criteria under B(a) should omit the reference to 86% and 14% proportions. It is suggested, in the alternative, that "the mix, size, type and cost of affordable homes will meet the identified housing needs of the Council's area and local needs as appropriate, established by housing need assessments including the SHMA". Design and Place-making: The approach set out in the PSLP for design and place-making is broadly supported. However, we note that there are effectively seven policies (HP12 - HP18) which provide the requirements against these matters. We also note that there are some areas of repetition on some of the objectives against those policies. We consider that those commenting on and determining applications should preferably have one or two identified policies to refer to and/or applicable thresholds to more succinctly set out requirements. This would ensure that planning applications can be more effectively judged against context, design and place-shaping criteria. Natural Environment: We generally support the Council's approach to Green Belt and the identification of suitable sites to meet the Council's housing and other needs. Accompanying these representations is an overview of the Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity considerations relating to Stonebond's land interests at R23 and R24 to confirm the suitability of removing those sites from the Green Belt and limited impact on the landscape. Policy NE13 - Site Allocations in the Green Belt: We welcome the PSLP's intentions to remove sites R23 and R24 from the Green Belt. This calls into question the need for Policy NE13. The requirements set out by criterion A and B are dealt with by other policies in the Plan. If there are site specific requirements relating to sites, these should be covered within the specific policies relating to those sites. Site Allocations: Policy R24 - Land off Stocks Lane: The proposed allocation of Land off Stocks Lane as Policy R24 and its removal from the Green Belt is considered sound and is fully supported. It has been established through the evidence base supporting the PSLP that Kelvedon Hatch is a sustainable location to accommodate a modest amount of new houses to contribute to the Borough's housing needs. Indeed, as recognised by para 68 of the NPPF and as a medium sized site, such sites make an important contribution to "meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built out quickly". We do however have some concerns with the amount of development set out at A of the Policy and the indicative yield at page 340 and the suggested trajectory for the site at Appendix 1. These matters are dealt with below. Supporting these representations is a Vision Document at Appendix A, a review of Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity at Appendix B and a Summary Drainage and Utility Appraisal at Appendix C. These all confirm that the development at the site is both justified and fully deliverable within the terms of para 67a) of the NPPF. The Vision Document demonstrates that careful consideration has been given to the emerging policies set out at BE01, BE08, BE22, as well as those relating to Design and Place-making at HP12, HP13, HP14, HP15 and HP18 of the PSLP to confirm that a scheme can meet the PSLP objectives in this regard. The Summary Drainage and Utility Appraisal at Appendix B confirms that there are no constraints to delivery. In addition, Stonebond Properties commissioned a transport appraisal from Ardent Consulting Engineers. This has confirmed that the location of the access shown in the Vision Document meets normal highway requirements in terms of safety and visability. This has been confirmed in speed surveys undertaken in Stocks Lane. The Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment at Appendix B confirms that the release of the site from the Green Belt is justified. It also confirms that there would be no significant impact on the surrounding landscape. Part A of Policy R24 suggests that there be provision for around 30 new homes on the site. Part A Policy HP03 of the PSLP requires proposals to take a design led approach to density to ensure schemes are sympathetic to local character and make efficient use of land. Part B expects development to achieve a net density of at least 35dph unless the special character of the surrounding area suggests that such densities would be inappropriate. The suggested amount of 30 homes set out for Policy R24 does not currently reflect these requirements or provide an accurate representation of what is achievable on site. 30 homes represent 18.6dph which clearly does not represent an efficient or effective use of the land contrary to the objectives of HP03 and the supporting text set out at 6.18 to 6.20 and 6.22. The Vision Document confirms that around 45 homes can actually be provided on the site representing a far more efficient and effective dwelling yield. 45 homes would represent a density of approximately 28dph. Whilst this does not achieve 35dph, the Vision Document demonstrates that full account has been taken of the objectives of HP03 to ensure that a scheme would be sympathetic to local character. Critically, the illustrative scheme shows provision for open space within the site to meet the objectives of Policies HP13 and BE22. These policies provide for functional on-site open space. As such, achieving a greater density would be problematical. In addition, it is important to note that the site is on the edge of the settlement where there is a need for sensitivity, having regard to the countryside to the east and south. Para 6.22 of the PSLP confirms that efficient land use is critical to the delivery of this Plan for the reasons set out at Sections 4 and 6 above against this background, it is recommended that amendments are made as follows: Policy R24A - substitute 30 new homes with 45 new homes; Page R24 - indicative dwelling yield substitute 30 with 45. At para 9.195 the PSLP suggests the development would take its access from Blackmore Road. This is an error. The paragraph should be amended to refer to Stocks Lane. The site is within the control of Stonebond Properties, a local house builder with considerable experience in the development of medium sized sites, quick delivery and achieving high design and layout standards. Upon removal from the Green Belt and grant of a planning permission, it would be expected that development at the site could commence 2020/21 and be completed within two years of the Plan. As a consequence, it is recommended that the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory at Appendix 1 is amended to provide for the following based on an increased number of homes as set out in these representations: Year 5 - 2020/21 = 10; Year 6 - 2021/22 = 35. These comments on Policy R24 provide greater certainty on delivery of the site. In addition, the changes suggested would contribute to the issues we have identified elsewhere with the PSLP specifically in relation to the supply and delivery of homes generally. As a result, we trust that the Council will be able to agree modifications/changes accordingly.