Paragraph 9.4 should be amended for consistency with paragraph 6.36 and to ensure the Plan is effective. as follows:

"Affordable housing should be provided in line with Policy HP05, as well as considerations for
specialist housing, Policy HP04. Some flexibility may be required in relation to the approach to affordable housing and the phased delivery of infrastructure to ensure viable proposals come forward over the life of the Plan."

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted

A. In line with Policy SP02, land at Dunton Hills (east of the A128, south of the A127 and north of the C2C railway line, approximately 259.2 ha in size) is allocated for residential-led development to deliver Dunton Hills Garden Village.

B. The development will deliver a mix of uses to comprise at least 2,700 homes in the plan period (as part of an overall indicative capacity of around 4,000 homes with the remainder to be delivered beyond 2033) together with the necessary community, employment, utility, transport and green and blue infrastructure (GBI) to support a self-sustaining, thriving and healthy garden village.

C. Successful development of the site allocation will require:

a. the masterplan to be underpinned by Garden Community principles and qualities

b. proposals to creatively address the key site constraints and sensitively respond to the unique qualities and opportunities afforded by the historic landscape and environmental setting to deliver a distinctive and well-designed garden village in line with the Spatial Vision and Strategic Aims and Objectives for Dunton Hills Garden Village; and

c. a holistic and comprehensive locally-led masterplan and design guidance to be developed, co-designed with relevant stakeholders to frame and guide the consistent quality and delivery across the site by different contractors over the delivery period.

D. The proposed development will be required to deliver all the necessary supporting spatial components and infrastructure to address the specific site constraints, potential impacts of development and harness the site opportunities as set out by the strategic Dunton Hills aims and objectives. Permission for mixed-use development will be granted subject to the parameters and components specified below:

a. delivery of at least 2,700 dwellings in the plan period providing a balanced variety of housing typologies and tenure and includes provision of self-build plots in line with Policy HP01; specialist accommodation in line with Policy HP04; and affordable housing in line with Policy HP05;

b. the provision of a minimum of 5 serviced Gypsy and Traveler pitches, in line with Policy HP07(b);

c. land (circa 5.5 ha) for employment space (in line with Policy PC03) to accommodate a creative range of creative employment uses suitable for a vibrant village centre and a predominantly residential area, including use class A1-A5 and appropriate B class uses;

d. land (circa 7.9 hectares) for a co-located secondary school (Use Class D1);

e. land (circa 2.1 hectares each) for two co-located primary school and early years and childcare nurseries, preferably co-located (Use Class D1);

f. land (circa 0.13 hectares each) for two stand-alone further early years and childcare nurseries (Use Class D1);

g. community and health infrastructure proportional to the scale of development, and in line with best practice principles of healthy design;

h. green and blue infrastructure to be a minimum of circa 50% of the total land area including private gardens and green roofs;

i. retail the provision of main town centre uses to form the vibrant village core in the form of a 'District Shopping Centre' with additional Local Centre(s) in line with Policy PC08, as appropriate to the scale and phasing of the development;

j. the provision of new and enhanced transport infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of development and to support sustainable modes of travel to ensure connectivity to key destinations, increase transport choice, support changes in travel behaviour, and to minimise the impact of traffic on the local and wider network, in line with Policy BE16 and as detailed in R01(ii) G-J; and

k. strategically designed and appropriately phased infrastructure, employing the most up to date technologies to ensure a smart, sustainable and a resilient basis for drainage and flood management in line with Policy BE08, water management including potable/non-potable and opportunities for grey water harvesting in line with BE03, efficient and cost saving energy networks in line with Policy BE04, superfast broadband in line with Policy BE10.

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted

Policy RO1 (II) Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

A. The locally-led garden village will be developed collaboratively to achieve a high quality Dunton Hills Garden Village development. Consent for Development will be permitted Planning permission will be granted if the masterplan and supporting design guidance for the development demonstrates how the spatial vision, design principles as well as Policies HP12 - HP18 on securing high-quality of placemaking is achieved to guide a coherent development across the whole allocation site.

Distinctive Character, Harmonic Design, Compact Density

B. Proposals must demonstrate how they will meet and embed key qualities to ensure distinctive, harmonic and popular design is achieved, by ensuring:

a. the unique character of Dunton Hills is informed by its distinct spatial, landscape and heritage qualities;
b. the design of sub-neighbourhoods and streets, that may take on their own unique character, are harmoniously integrated to form an overall Dunton Hills Garden Village identity - through the coherent and complementary use of materials and design of the public realm in line with Policy HP18; and
c. an appropriate range of densities are achieved across the site to ensure a compact and highly networked, walkable and fine-grained environment with a highly connected street-based layout. This should be demonstrated by an accompanying density plan.

Ecological Networks, Biodiversity Net Gain, Green Infrastructure and Public Realm

C. A green and blue infrastructure (GBI) plan should be submitted that demonstrates how the design of GBI will be an integral part of the masterplan layout to achieve multi-functional, coherent and connected GBI in line with Policy BE18. The GBI plan should be informed by a comprehensive wildlife and habitat survey and heritage and landscape character assessment. The GBI Plan should incorporate the following:

a. a highly connected and biodiverse ecological network that incorporates existing habitats of value and natural features, and where relevant new habitats such as trees, tree lines and hedges, hedgerows, ponds and lakes, among others, in line with Policy NE01, NE03 and NE04;

b. a variety of activity nodes and treatments for recreation and leisure opportunities throughout the GBI, including public natural parkland, pockets of village greens, local nature reserve, allotment sites, sports pitches and fields;

c. a streetscape that continues the green infrastructure through the residential areas and village centre with creative landscape schemes including tree-lined streets, grass verges and rain gardens;

d. an appropriate amount, height and depth of green infrastructure screening adjacent to A127, A128, rail tracks to mitigate noise and air pollution;

e. well-designed interfaces between the green open space and the built structures should ensure passive surveillance, with coherent and gradual transitions and clear boundaries and vistas; and

f. a green infrastructure buffer/wedge on the eastern boundary with Basildon Borough to help achieve visual separation between the two settlements and to help significantly improve the landscaped and habitat value by reinforcing the existing woodland, trees and hedgerows with new planting. thus reinforcing the beneficial purpose and use of the green belt in that zone.

Sport, Recreational, Leisure and Public Open Space

D. The provision for leisure, recreation and sport opportunities must be an integral part of the GBI Plan; it should incorporate as a minimum the following provision:

a. an appropriate amount of sports and recreation provision to provide a variety of pitch sizes and facilities in line with Policy BE23;

b. the GBI following Nightingale Lane should incorporate a heritage trail with signage and history information boards;

c. pathways through the GBI network will be made of permeable material and follow a coherent treatment throughout the village. The pathways will all connect into a circular walk, with interconnected shortcut routes and be signposted offering directions to key destination points; and

d. an appropriate number of play spaces shall be incorporated throughout the GBI network, with an emphasis on quality natural play provision to encourage outdoor adventure play and learning.





Views
E. Key views shall be safeguarded and maintained and become distinctive features on of the new development. This should be informed by a key views assessment and proposals should demonstrate the following:

a. how the urban layout will incorporate safeguarded views in terms of the structure, morphology and how the streets and avenues are orientated to maintain the visual landscape corridors;

b. how visual separation with Basildon will be achieved on the eastern boundary of the site; and

c. how the settlement orientations might also take advantage of opportunities for passive heating and cooling.

Embedding Heritage Assets

F. Development should take account of the desirability to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets retain, integrate and where appropriate enhance both designated and non-designated heritage assets to provide an attractive and distinctive garden village in line with Policies HP19, HP20 and HP22. Incorporation of these assets should be informed by a Landscape Character Assessment and a Heritage Statement Assessment in line with guidance, having key consideration which should provide for the following provisions:

a. protection and enhancement of existing public rights of way;

b. the integration of the historic core and listed buildings of the farmstead with new development are well integrated as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre; and

c. protection of listed buildings during the construction phase. and during any retrofitting to ensure the structures are fit-for-purpose for new uses.

Sustainable Travel

G. Priority should be given to cycle and pedestrian movements and access to public transport. Development should therefore, promote and incorporate sustainable mobility and transport measures in line with Policy BE12, Policy BE13, and Policy BE14. The development will be required to integrate 'Active by Design' measures throughout the street network to promote healthy travel options. The development will be required to incorporate a dedicated segregated cycle lane to ensure cycling is safe for all ages and to help discourage single occupancy car use for short internal trips. Where appropriate, this should be integrated with the off-street cycle routes throughout the GBI network to ensure safe routes to schools and to other recreation facilities and key destinations.

Transport Improvements Impact Mitigations

H. The proposed development will be required to demonstrate that through design and management it makes the best use of this sustainable location by maximising mobility and hence social inclusion in order of movement priority set out in G and mitigate any predicted transport impacts consistent with measures identified in Policies BE11 and BE16. It will be required to demonstrate the degree of effect on movement and travel within the local area and the importance of those effects in the context of current national planning policy. This should be informed by the latest a Transport Assessment, which should be monitored and re-evaluated throughout the lifespan of the build-out, to account for changes in transport technology and wider strategic transport network changes. As a minimum, improvements mitigations will include:

a. New junctions to access the garden village along with junction improvements where appropriate on the highway network, including any necessary traffic calming measures at key gateways, to create a sense of arrival;

b. public shared travel systems, which may incorporate fixed route buses and demand responsive buses, connecting the development with potential dedicated bus route(s) connecting the development with West Horndon station, nearby employment locations and other key social infrastructure;

c. IT platforms for private and public shared travel systems;

d. public and/or private shared travel systems to nearby school facilities prior to the delivery of on-site school facilities;

d. financial contribution towards improvements at West Horndon station for vehicular, segregated cycle and public transport access from surrounding developments as well as cycle storage and a bus interchange facility; and

e. illustrative plans to indicate key connections to the surrounding green infrastructure destinations and key nearby employment sites.

Clean Vehicle Alternatives

I. The development should promote car-limiting and clean vehicle alternatives in line with Policies BE12 and BE15. Emphasis Support will be given to:

a. incorporating car sharing clubs and electric vehicle only development;

b. time limiting car parking in the central locations; and clean air zones around the main schools and community buildings.

Street Hierarchy

J. The street hierarchy shall be designed to promote a highly connected, permeable garden village that promotes walking and cycling, yet accommodate the vehicular accessibility requirements for servicing, refuse, emergency access and bus routing. Proposals should demonstrate how they are incorporating the following provisions:

a. the development shall be a 20 mile an hour zone ensuring the safety of the public realm;

b. main street(s) into the garden village from the main arterial routes (A127/A128) will adopt a tree-lined boulevard approach and be designed to slow down the traffic, making it clear that it is now a neighbourhood zone;

c. enhancement of public footpaths, public rights of way routes (such as Nightingale Lane) and any bridleways throughout the GBI network, to coherently connect back to the residential pedestrian links; and

d. residential streetscape should be designed to incorporate grass meridians, verges and trees/tree lined avenues to help slow down the traffic and give the road an instant village feel.

Village Centre(s) - Retail Town centre uses, Community and Employment Opportunities

K. Proposals for the placement and design of the village centre(s) should be informed by a an appropriate retail hierarchy study that assesses the needs of the new community taking into account existing provision in the surrounding area village centre needs, based on the supply and demand of the surrounding area. As a minimum this should incorporate the following:

a. the location of the main village centre should incorporate the historic farmstead in the centre of the site, creating a heritage legacy for the village centre;

a. the village centre(s) should be designed to be mixed-use, with a range of commercial and community uses along ground floor frontages and a mix of uses on upper floors including residential and small-scale employment;

b. the village centre(s) should provide localised opportunities for employment with a variety of work spaces, including flexible incubator/affordable spaces that are complementary to district-level service centre uses; and

c. delivery of employment spaces should demonstrate a healthy-by-design approach, informed by leading industry guidance on the design of healthy and productive workplaces.

Social Infrastructure

L. Proposals for the design of social infrastructure such as schools, health facilities and community spaces must demonstrate how they have incorporated key learning points and knowledge from the interior design sectors to deliver environments conducive to human health and social wellbeing. Design proposals which demonstrate the following will be supported:

a. design informed by the latest knowledge and principles of human-centred design, biophilic design, and sustainable healthcare;

b. design which demonstrates the adoption of relevant industry standards, such as BREEAM or WELL standard; and

c. facilities that are designed to be flexible to allow for wider community uses; for example, the use of the school in out-of-school hours for activities such as adult learning classes, other community activities, or the use of the school playing fields for community sports.

Locally-led Garden Village

A. As a locally-led garden village, the private sector should work pro-actively and collaboratively with the public sector to plan and design the masterplan and design principles for the Dunton Hills site allocation. This will require:

a. community involvement to inform the design and delivery requirements from the outset; the approach should be outlined in a supporting Community Engagement Strategy; partnership working with key industry and public sector stakeholders is encouraged, especially to inform the evolution of the masterplan and determine the complex infrastructure requirements, in line with county level requirements; and

b. implemention of a Jobs Brokerage Scheme to ensure that new jobs created on site go to local people.

Development Phasing

B. The development and phased delivery of DHGV must ensure the timely delivery of the required on-site and off-site infrastructure to address the impact of the new garden village and help the early establishment of a cohesive community. Proposals should be accompanied by a phasing plan to demonstrate how delivery will be phased, managed, accelerated and governed, without compromising quality or viability.

Stewardship

C. At the appropriate time, planning applications must include a supporting statement setting out Planning permission will be granted for development provided that the long-term sustainable governance and stewardship arrangements (management, maintenance and renewal) for the community assets including green-blue infrastructure, the public realm and community and other relevant facilities to be funded by the developer. Considerations should be given to devices such as legal covenants in deeds to establish responsibilities over certain matters of care, such as front gardens, communal gardens, public realm.

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted

In relation to paragraph 9.40, the following amendments are proposed:

"Distinctive The significance of the landscape features and key views, including those to the such as London skyline and Langdon Hills, and others identified must should be retained and enhanced as part of the development. The development will also provide new publicly accessible viewpoints and characteristic landscape features as part of the Green and Blue Infrastructure across the site."

New paragraph 9.41:

"Grassy meridians down the middle of streets should be used as a traffic calming tactic, especially on the larger roads which spur off the main A roads, to create lane separation for different transport modes."

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted

Delete reference to in Para 9.60 that refers to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core.

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted