Policy HP01 should be provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
---
The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.

Policy
HP01 : Housing Mix
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP01 and its supporting text in order to comply with national policy.
Policy HP01: Housing Mix
3. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF refers to the need for planning policies to reflect assessments of local need including in relation to affordable housing and people wishing to commission or build their own homes:
"61. Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes1)".
4. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site. 5. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised2: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)". 6. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to the Council 'seeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community benefits. 7. With regard to 'what accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?' the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states3: 2 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 23b-002-20190315 3 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
"Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual's needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement - see paragraph 011 below. Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied".
8. We consider that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the requirement set out in paragraph A (a)(ii) of the policy for every dwelling built on all residential developments of 10 or more dwellings to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless they are built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwelling standard, is actually justified in terms of either need or viability.
9. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national housing space standards.
10. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation some concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need".
11. Paragraph 6.4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing-mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up-to-date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negotiations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing. Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
12. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is fully committed to ensuring that the housing mix policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a 'one size fits all' approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) and more localised market information, given that different types of housing mixes will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets and recent types of housing provision.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect dispensations from these housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The policy should be amended by the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'seek' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
16. Consequently, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy, as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater flexibility. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither 'justified', nor 'effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.
19. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
Policy
H P 05 : Affordable Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP05: Affordable Housing in order to provide greater flexibility.
Policy HP05: Affordable Housing
3. We support the policy's aim of seeking to deliver as much affordable housing as is possible given the local need for it. However, it is important that the Council also gives adequate regard to viability and the overall cost of adhering to all other Local Plan policy and site-based requirements. 4. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised1: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)".
5. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to
the Council 's eeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community
benefits.
6. Consequently, we do not believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph A. that the Council will require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
7. Neither do we believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph B.(a) that the Council will require that the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (including starter homes, intermediate homes, shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing). It is not evident from reading the content of the Pba Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Part 1 (October 2018) what the precise justification for these tenure split figures is. Nor is it evident whether they have been properly scrutinised with regard to viability.
8. The policy goes on to specify that 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
9. We believe that the current policy wording set out in paragraphs A and B is too inflexible and fails to take adequate account of both viability and the fact that affordable housing requirements will inevitably change over the course of the Plan period as different products emerge and rates of affordable housing need change.
10. We note also that paragraph G. states that the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all residential development falling under use class C3 with the exception of Gypsy & Traveller Pitches or Travelling Showman Plots. This is contrary to national policy as set out in the NPPF.
11. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.
12. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
* provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
* provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
* is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
* is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect exceptions from these affordable housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by minor amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The amendments should include the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'see k' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. We note that paragraph 6. 4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up to date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negot iations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing.
Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
16. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is full y committed to ensuring that the affordable housing policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a one size fits all approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Moni toring Report (AMR) and more localised information, given that different types of affordable housing provision will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets , and other policy and infrastructure requirements .
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provid es greater clarity regarding affordable housing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alte rnatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05:
A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters.
B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy.
C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received.
D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable.
E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site.
F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision.
G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.
Policy
HP06 : S pace Standards for New Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy HP06 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that in relation to 'what optional technical housing standards can local planning authorities set?' that local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access and water, and an optional nationally described space standard. Local planning authorities will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area, and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans1.
4. In consideration of 'how should local planning authorities assess viability concerns for setting optional Building Regulation requirements and the nationally described space standard?', the PPG specifies that local planning authorities should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment. In considering the costs relating to optional Building Regulation requirements or the nationally described space standard, authorities may wish to take account of the evidence in the most recent Impact Assessment issued alongside the Housing Standards Review2.
5. The PPG goes on to state that: "Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: * need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes. * viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted. * timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions"3.
Policy HP06: Space Standards for New Housing
6. Table 1: Monitoring Framework: Broad parameters for monitoring policy implementation specifies that in respect of Policy HP06 internal spaces are to be above minimum standards in national space standards. It specifies that the monitoring target is 100% of new homes at or above minimum standards.
7. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon national 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national space standard.
8. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation s ome concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need"
9. Paragraph 8.24 states that in the Viability Study the units are assumed to be in excess of these National Space Standards.
Conclusions
10. The policy is not supported by detailed local evidence to support the imposition of the national space standard. Consequently, the policy would benefit by a mendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
Test of Soundness
11. In view of the above co nsiderations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater clarity regarding affordable hous ing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'posit ively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
12. In the absence of any detailed local evidence to demonstrate the need for setting a local space standard, or evidence that it would be viable for developments of less than 500 dwellings, paragraph A of the policy should be deleted.
Policy
NE13 : Site Allocations in the Green Belt
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy NE13 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. When considering the soundness of Policy NE13, it is very important to have careful regard to national policy.
4. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that Planning Obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests1:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF specifies that Plans should set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
6. The Framework goes on in paragraph 139 to refer to the importance of meeting identified development needs and being able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the Plan period.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
7. The policy specifies that sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for surrounding existing communities and those moving into new homes on site.
8. The supporting text explains that this policy is in place to ensure the cost of losing some Green Belt is repaid through significant benefits to new and existing communities, and to capture the uplift in land value for local benefit. It goes on to state that these benefits are likely to be for different needs depending upon the area, but could involve new community facilities, open space for public use, play areas, and investment in existing facilities. Reference is also made to development needing to contribute to local education and healthcare.
9. We strongly contend that the policy requirements fail to accord with what is required by national planning policy, particularly with regard to the tests for seeking Planning Obligations set out in Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. It would be both inappropriate and unreasonable to expect developers and landowners to make provision to meet the needs of surrounding existing communities, rather than addressing the actual needs that would arise from new development. Such an approach would be unlawful.
10. The Council has recognised in preparing the Local Plan that the huge demand and pressure for development in the Borough provides the exceptional circumstances to alter Green Belt boundaries. Through the plan preparation process, including Sustainability Appraisal, it has recognised that the development of our Client's land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22) would be amongst the least impactful (in terms of Green Belt purposes) and would promote sustainable patterns of development.
11. It is fully evident that the need for chosen sites to then deliver significant community benefits to justify their Green Belt release is not identified in national policy. Furthermore, opportunities for onsite provision of new "significant" community facilities on smaller scale Green Belt releases are limited and any contributions made towards offsite provision should not go beyond the CIL Regulation 122 and 123 tests. Accordingly, we strongly challenge the soundness of this Policy.
12. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
13. It is clear that Brentwood Borough Council are experiencing housing delivery difficulties and as a consequence, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Conclusion
14. The policy would benefit by the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
15. We also consider that the policy wording would be clearer by referrin g to sites being removed from the Green Belt, rather than de allocated.
Test of Soundness
16. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that any community benefits
being sought are legally justified and appropriate . Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most a ppropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'positively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
17. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.
Policy
R22 : Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
Policy R22: Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
2. We very much welcome the fact that our Client's site has been proposed as a housing allocation in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Policy R22) with an indicative dwelling yield of 57 dwellings and a delivery forecast of 2021/22 - 2023/24, and the Council has responded positively to representations that we made at the Regulation 18 stage, which sought to increase the capacity to 57 dwellings and for the trajectory to identify this site coming forward early in the plan period.
3. Our previous representations were supported by a number of technical studies which we trust the Council found helpful in supporting its decision to allocate the site. Through the technical work undertaken to date, it has been demonstrated that the site is sustainable; can be well integrated into the existing transport network; is suitable for development in terms of noise and vibration levels; and can be developed in a way that will enhance the ecological value of the site.
4. We have also demonstrated through the design work undertaken that the site is capable of delivering approximately 57 market and affordable homes together with public open space and an area of children's play.
5. We are pleased to note that this design work has been recognised by the Council, and the site is now identified in the Pre-Submission Local Plan as offering an indicative yield of around 57 dwellings of mixed size and type.
6. A planning application is now being prepared and a pre-application meeting will take place in the near future.
Conclusion
7. We wish to reiterate our strong support for the proposed allocation of land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for around 57 homes (Policy R22) and we look forward to continuing discussions with the Council with respect to bringing the site forward for delivery at the earliest opportunity.
Test of Soundness
8. We consider that Policy R22 of the Draft Local Plan is sound, because it has been 'positively prepared' and is consistent with national policy justified' and 'effective'.

The amendments should include the deletion of references to 'require' and their
replacement with 'see k' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact
that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate.

Policy
HP01 : Housing Mix
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP01 and its supporting text in order to comply with national policy.
Policy HP01: Housing Mix
3. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF refers to the need for planning policies to reflect assessments of local need including in relation to affordable housing and people wishing to commission or build their own homes:
"61. Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes1)".
4. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site. 5. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised2: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)". 6. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to the Council 'seeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community benefits. 7. With regard to 'what accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?' the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states3: 2 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 23b-002-20190315 3 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
"Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual's needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement - see paragraph 011 below. Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied".
8. We consider that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the requirement set out in paragraph A (a)(ii) of the policy for every dwelling built on all residential developments of 10 or more dwellings to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless they are built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwelling standard, is actually justified in terms of either need or viability.
9. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national housing space standards.
10. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation some concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need".
11. Paragraph 6.4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing-mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up-to-date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negotiations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing. Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
12. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is fully committed to ensuring that the housing mix policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a 'one size fits all' approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) and more localised market information, given that different types of housing mixes will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets and recent types of housing provision.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect dispensations from these housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The policy should be amended by the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'seek' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
16. Consequently, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy, as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater flexibility. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither 'justified', nor 'effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.
19. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
Policy
H P 05 : Affordable Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP05: Affordable Housing in order to provide greater flexibility.
Policy HP05: Affordable Housing
3. We support the policy's aim of seeking to deliver as much affordable housing as is possible given the local need for it. However, it is important that the Council also gives adequate regard to viability and the overall cost of adhering to all other Local Plan policy and site-based requirements. 4. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised1: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)".
5. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to
the Council 's eeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community
benefits.
6. Consequently, we do not believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph A. that the Council will require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
7. Neither do we believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph B.(a) that the Council will require that the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (including starter homes, intermediate homes, shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing). It is not evident from reading the content of the Pba Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Part 1 (October 2018) what the precise justification for these tenure split figures is. Nor is it evident whether they have been properly scrutinised with regard to viability.
8. The policy goes on to specify that 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
9. We believe that the current policy wording set out in paragraphs A and B is too inflexible and fails to take adequate account of both viability and the fact that affordable housing requirements will inevitably change over the course of the Plan period as different products emerge and rates of affordable housing need change.
10. We note also that paragraph G. states that the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all residential development falling under use class C3 with the exception of Gypsy & Traveller Pitches or Travelling Showman Plots. This is contrary to national policy as set out in the NPPF.
11. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.
12. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
* provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
* provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
* is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
* is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect exceptions from these affordable housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by minor amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The amendments should include the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'see k' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. We note that paragraph 6. 4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up to date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negot iations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing.
Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
16. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is full y committed to ensuring that the affordable housing policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a one size fits all approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Moni toring Report (AMR) and more localised information, given that different types of affordable housing provision will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets , and other policy and infrastructure requirements .
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provid es greater clarity regarding affordable housing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alte rnatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05:
A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters.
B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy.
C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received.
D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable.
E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site.
F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision.
G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.
Policy
HP06 : S pace Standards for New Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy HP06 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that in relation to 'what optional technical housing standards can local planning authorities set?' that local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access and water, and an optional nationally described space standard. Local planning authorities will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area, and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans1.
4. In consideration of 'how should local planning authorities assess viability concerns for setting optional Building Regulation requirements and the nationally described space standard?', the PPG specifies that local planning authorities should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment. In considering the costs relating to optional Building Regulation requirements or the nationally described space standard, authorities may wish to take account of the evidence in the most recent Impact Assessment issued alongside the Housing Standards Review2.
5. The PPG goes on to state that: "Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: * need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes. * viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted. * timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions"3.
Policy HP06: Space Standards for New Housing
6. Table 1: Monitoring Framework: Broad parameters for monitoring policy implementation specifies that in respect of Policy HP06 internal spaces are to be above minimum standards in national space standards. It specifies that the monitoring target is 100% of new homes at or above minimum standards.
7. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon national 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national space standard.
8. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation s ome concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need"
9. Paragraph 8.24 states that in the Viability Study the units are assumed to be in excess of these National Space Standards.
Conclusions
10. The policy is not supported by detailed local evidence to support the imposition of the national space standard. Consequently, the policy would benefit by a mendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
Test of Soundness
11. In view of the above co nsiderations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater clarity regarding affordable hous ing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'posit ively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
12. In the absence of any detailed local evidence to demonstrate the need for setting a local space standard, or evidence that it would be viable for developments of less than 500 dwellings, paragraph A of the policy should be deleted.
Policy
NE13 : Site Allocations in the Green Belt
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy NE13 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. When considering the soundness of Policy NE13, it is very important to have careful regard to national policy.
4. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that Planning Obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests1:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF specifies that Plans should set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
6. The Framework goes on in paragraph 139 to refer to the importance of meeting identified development needs and being able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the Plan period.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
7. The policy specifies that sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for surrounding existing communities and those moving into new homes on site.
8. The supporting text explains that this policy is in place to ensure the cost of losing some Green Belt is repaid through significant benefits to new and existing communities, and to capture the uplift in land value for local benefit. It goes on to state that these benefits are likely to be for different needs depending upon the area, but could involve new community facilities, open space for public use, play areas, and investment in existing facilities. Reference is also made to development needing to contribute to local education and healthcare.
9. We strongly contend that the policy requirements fail to accord with what is required by national planning policy, particularly with regard to the tests for seeking Planning Obligations set out in Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. It would be both inappropriate and unreasonable to expect developers and landowners to make provision to meet the needs of surrounding existing communities, rather than addressing the actual needs that would arise from new development. Such an approach would be unlawful.
10. The Council has recognised in preparing the Local Plan that the huge demand and pressure for development in the Borough provides the exceptional circumstances to alter Green Belt boundaries. Through the plan preparation process, including Sustainability Appraisal, it has recognised that the development of our Client's land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22) would be amongst the least impactful (in terms of Green Belt purposes) and would promote sustainable patterns of development.
11. It is fully evident that the need for chosen sites to then deliver significant community benefits to justify their Green Belt release is not identified in national policy. Furthermore, opportunities for onsite provision of new "significant" community facilities on smaller scale Green Belt releases are limited and any contributions made towards offsite provision should not go beyond the CIL Regulation 122 and 123 tests. Accordingly, we strongly challenge the soundness of this Policy.
12. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
13. It is clear that Brentwood Borough Council are experiencing housing delivery difficulties and as a consequence, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Conclusion
14. The policy would benefit by the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
15. We also consider that the policy wording would be clearer by referrin g to sites being removed from the Green Belt, rather than de allocated.
Test of Soundness
16. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that any community benefits
being sought are legally justified and appropriate . Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most a ppropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'positively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
17. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.
Policy
R22 : Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
Policy R22: Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
2. We very much welcome the fact that our Client's site has been proposed as a housing allocation in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Policy R22) with an indicative dwelling yield of 57 dwellings and a delivery forecast of 2021/22 - 2023/24, and the Council has responded positively to representations that we made at the Regulation 18 stage, which sought to increase the capacity to 57 dwellings and for the trajectory to identify this site coming forward early in the plan period.
3. Our previous representations were supported by a number of technical studies which we trust the Council found helpful in supporting its decision to allocate the site. Through the technical work undertaken to date, it has been demonstrated that the site is sustainable; can be well integrated into the existing transport network; is suitable for development in terms of noise and vibration levels; and can be developed in a way that will enhance the ecological value of the site.
4. We have also demonstrated through the design work undertaken that the site is capable of delivering approximately 57 market and affordable homes together with public open space and an area of children's play.
5. We are pleased to note that this design work has been recognised by the Council, and the site is now identified in the Pre-Submission Local Plan as offering an indicative yield of around 57 dwellings of mixed size and type.
6. A planning application is now being prepared and a pre-application meeting will take place in the near future.
Conclusion
7. We wish to reiterate our strong support for the proposed allocation of land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for around 57 homes (Policy R22) and we look forward to continuing discussions with the Council with respect to bringing the site forward for delivery at the earliest opportunity.
Test of Soundness
8. We consider that Policy R22 of the Draft Local Plan is sound, because it has been 'positively prepared' and is consistent with national policy justified' and 'effective'.

The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05: A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters. B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy. C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received. D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable. E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site. F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision. G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.

Policy
HP01 : Housing Mix
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP01 and its supporting text in order to comply with national policy.
Policy HP01: Housing Mix
3. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF refers to the need for planning policies to reflect assessments of local need including in relation to affordable housing and people wishing to commission or build their own homes:
"61. Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes1)".
4. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site. 5. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised2: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)". 6. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to the Council 'seeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community benefits. 7. With regard to 'what accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?' the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states3: 2 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 23b-002-20190315 3 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
"Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual's needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement - see paragraph 011 below. Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied".
8. We consider that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the requirement set out in paragraph A (a)(ii) of the policy for every dwelling built on all residential developments of 10 or more dwellings to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless they are built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwelling standard, is actually justified in terms of either need or viability.
9. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national housing space standards.
10. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation some concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need".
11. Paragraph 6.4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing-mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up-to-date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negotiations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing. Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
12. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is fully committed to ensuring that the housing mix policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a 'one size fits all' approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) and more localised market information, given that different types of housing mixes will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets and recent types of housing provision.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect dispensations from these housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The policy should be amended by the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'seek' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
16. Consequently, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy, as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater flexibility. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither 'justified', nor 'effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.
19. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
Policy
H P 05 : Affordable Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP05: Affordable Housing in order to provide greater flexibility.
Policy HP05: Affordable Housing
3. We support the policy's aim of seeking to deliver as much affordable housing as is possible given the local need for it. However, it is important that the Council also gives adequate regard to viability and the overall cost of adhering to all other Local Plan policy and site-based requirements. 4. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised1: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)".
5. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to
the Council 's eeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community
benefits.
6. Consequently, we do not believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph A. that the Council will require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
7. Neither do we believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph B.(a) that the Council will require that the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (including starter homes, intermediate homes, shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing). It is not evident from reading the content of the Pba Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Part 1 (October 2018) what the precise justification for these tenure split figures is. Nor is it evident whether they have been properly scrutinised with regard to viability.
8. The policy goes on to specify that 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
9. We believe that the current policy wording set out in paragraphs A and B is too inflexible and fails to take adequate account of both viability and the fact that affordable housing requirements will inevitably change over the course of the Plan period as different products emerge and rates of affordable housing need change.
10. We note also that paragraph G. states that the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all residential development falling under use class C3 with the exception of Gypsy & Traveller Pitches or Travelling Showman Plots. This is contrary to national policy as set out in the NPPF.
11. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.
12. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
* provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
* provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
* is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
* is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect exceptions from these affordable housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by minor amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The amendments should include the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'see k' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. We note that paragraph 6. 4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up to date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negot iations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing.
Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
16. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is full y committed to ensuring that the affordable housing policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a one size fits all approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Moni toring Report (AMR) and more localised information, given that different types of affordable housing provision will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets , and other policy and infrastructure requirements .
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provid es greater clarity regarding affordable housing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alte rnatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05:
A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters.
B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy.
C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received.
D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable.
E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site.
F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision.
G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.
Policy
HP06 : S pace Standards for New Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy HP06 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that in relation to 'what optional technical housing standards can local planning authorities set?' that local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access and water, and an optional nationally described space standard. Local planning authorities will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area, and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans1.
4. In consideration of 'how should local planning authorities assess viability concerns for setting optional Building Regulation requirements and the nationally described space standard?', the PPG specifies that local planning authorities should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment. In considering the costs relating to optional Building Regulation requirements or the nationally described space standard, authorities may wish to take account of the evidence in the most recent Impact Assessment issued alongside the Housing Standards Review2.
5. The PPG goes on to state that: "Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: * need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes. * viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted. * timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions"3.
Policy HP06: Space Standards for New Housing
6. Table 1: Monitoring Framework: Broad parameters for monitoring policy implementation specifies that in respect of Policy HP06 internal spaces are to be above minimum standards in national space standards. It specifies that the monitoring target is 100% of new homes at or above minimum standards.
7. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon national 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national space standard.
8. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation s ome concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need"
9. Paragraph 8.24 states that in the Viability Study the units are assumed to be in excess of these National Space Standards.
Conclusions
10. The policy is not supported by detailed local evidence to support the imposition of the national space standard. Consequently, the policy would benefit by a mendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
Test of Soundness
11. In view of the above co nsiderations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater clarity regarding affordable hous ing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'posit ively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
12. In the absence of any detailed local evidence to demonstrate the need for setting a local space standard, or evidence that it would be viable for developments of less than 500 dwellings, paragraph A of the policy should be deleted.
Policy
NE13 : Site Allocations in the Green Belt
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy NE13 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. When considering the soundness of Policy NE13, it is very important to have careful regard to national policy.
4. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that Planning Obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests1:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF specifies that Plans should set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
6. The Framework goes on in paragraph 139 to refer to the importance of meeting identified development needs and being able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the Plan period.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
7. The policy specifies that sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for surrounding existing communities and those moving into new homes on site.
8. The supporting text explains that this policy is in place to ensure the cost of losing some Green Belt is repaid through significant benefits to new and existing communities, and to capture the uplift in land value for local benefit. It goes on to state that these benefits are likely to be for different needs depending upon the area, but could involve new community facilities, open space for public use, play areas, and investment in existing facilities. Reference is also made to development needing to contribute to local education and healthcare.
9. We strongly contend that the policy requirements fail to accord with what is required by national planning policy, particularly with regard to the tests for seeking Planning Obligations set out in Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. It would be both inappropriate and unreasonable to expect developers and landowners to make provision to meet the needs of surrounding existing communities, rather than addressing the actual needs that would arise from new development. Such an approach would be unlawful.
10. The Council has recognised in preparing the Local Plan that the huge demand and pressure for development in the Borough provides the exceptional circumstances to alter Green Belt boundaries. Through the plan preparation process, including Sustainability Appraisal, it has recognised that the development of our Client's land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22) would be amongst the least impactful (in terms of Green Belt purposes) and would promote sustainable patterns of development.
11. It is fully evident that the need for chosen sites to then deliver significant community benefits to justify their Green Belt release is not identified in national policy. Furthermore, opportunities for onsite provision of new "significant" community facilities on smaller scale Green Belt releases are limited and any contributions made towards offsite provision should not go beyond the CIL Regulation 122 and 123 tests. Accordingly, we strongly challenge the soundness of this Policy.
12. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
13. It is clear that Brentwood Borough Council are experiencing housing delivery difficulties and as a consequence, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Conclusion
14. The policy would benefit by the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
15. We also consider that the policy wording would be clearer by referrin g to sites being removed from the Green Belt, rather than de allocated.
Test of Soundness
16. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that any community benefits
being sought are legally justified and appropriate . Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most a ppropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'positively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
17. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.
Policy
R22 : Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
Policy R22: Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
2. We very much welcome the fact that our Client's site has been proposed as a housing allocation in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Policy R22) with an indicative dwelling yield of 57 dwellings and a delivery forecast of 2021/22 - 2023/24, and the Council has responded positively to representations that we made at the Regulation 18 stage, which sought to increase the capacity to 57 dwellings and for the trajectory to identify this site coming forward early in the plan period.
3. Our previous representations were supported by a number of technical studies which we trust the Council found helpful in supporting its decision to allocate the site. Through the technical work undertaken to date, it has been demonstrated that the site is sustainable; can be well integrated into the existing transport network; is suitable for development in terms of noise and vibration levels; and can be developed in a way that will enhance the ecological value of the site.
4. We have also demonstrated through the design work undertaken that the site is capable of delivering approximately 57 market and affordable homes together with public open space and an area of children's play.
5. We are pleased to note that this design work has been recognised by the Council, and the site is now identified in the Pre-Submission Local Plan as offering an indicative yield of around 57 dwellings of mixed size and type.
6. A planning application is now being prepared and a pre-application meeting will take place in the near future.
Conclusion
7. We wish to reiterate our strong support for the proposed allocation of land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for around 57 homes (Policy R22) and we look forward to continuing discussions with the Council with respect to bringing the site forward for delivery at the earliest opportunity.
Test of Soundness
8. We consider that Policy R22 of the Draft Local Plan is sound, because it has been 'positively prepared' and is consistent with national policy justified' and 'effective'.

The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05: A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters. B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy. C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received. D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable. E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site. F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision. G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.

Policy
HP01 : Housing Mix
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP01 and its supporting text in order to comply with national policy.
Policy HP01: Housing Mix
3. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF refers to the need for planning policies to reflect assessments of local need including in relation to affordable housing and people wishing to commission or build their own homes:
"61. Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes1)".
4. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site. 5. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised2: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)". 6. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to the Council 'seeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community benefits. 7. With regard to 'what accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?' the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states3: 2 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 23b-002-20190315 3 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
"Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual's needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement - see paragraph 011 below. Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied".
8. We consider that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the requirement set out in paragraph A (a)(ii) of the policy for every dwelling built on all residential developments of 10 or more dwellings to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless they are built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwelling standard, is actually justified in terms of either need or viability.
9. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national housing space standards.
10. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation some concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need".
11. Paragraph 6.4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing-mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up-to-date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negotiations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing. Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
12. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is fully committed to ensuring that the housing mix policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a 'one size fits all' approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) and more localised market information, given that different types of housing mixes will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets and recent types of housing provision.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect dispensations from these housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The policy should be amended by the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'seek' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
16. Consequently, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy, as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater flexibility. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither 'justified', nor 'effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.
19. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
Policy
H P 05 : Affordable Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP05: Affordable Housing in order to provide greater flexibility.
Policy HP05: Affordable Housing
3. We support the policy's aim of seeking to deliver as much affordable housing as is possible given the local need for it. However, it is important that the Council also gives adequate regard to viability and the overall cost of adhering to all other Local Plan policy and site-based requirements. 4. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised1: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)".
5. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to
the Council 's eeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community
benefits.
6. Consequently, we do not believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph A. that the Council will require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
7. Neither do we believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph B.(a) that the Council will require that the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (including starter homes, intermediate homes, shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing). It is not evident from reading the content of the Pba Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Part 1 (October 2018) what the precise justification for these tenure split figures is. Nor is it evident whether they have been properly scrutinised with regard to viability.
8. The policy goes on to specify that 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
9. We believe that the current policy wording set out in paragraphs A and B is too inflexible and fails to take adequate account of both viability and the fact that affordable housing requirements will inevitably change over the course of the Plan period as different products emerge and rates of affordable housing need change.
10. We note also that paragraph G. states that the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all residential development falling under use class C3 with the exception of Gypsy & Traveller Pitches or Travelling Showman Plots. This is contrary to national policy as set out in the NPPF.
11. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.
12. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
* provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
* provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
* is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
* is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect exceptions from these affordable housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by minor amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The amendments should include the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'see k' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. We note that paragraph 6. 4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up to date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negot iations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing.
Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
16. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is full y committed to ensuring that the affordable housing policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a one size fits all approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Moni toring Report (AMR) and more localised information, given that different types of affordable housing provision will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets , and other policy and infrastructure requirements .
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provid es greater clarity regarding affordable housing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alte rnatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05:
A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters.
B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy.
C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received.
D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable.
E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site.
F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision.
G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.
Policy
HP06 : S pace Standards for New Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy HP06 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that in relation to 'what optional technical housing standards can local planning authorities set?' that local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access and water, and an optional nationally described space standard. Local planning authorities will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area, and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans1.
4. In consideration of 'how should local planning authorities assess viability concerns for setting optional Building Regulation requirements and the nationally described space standard?', the PPG specifies that local planning authorities should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment. In considering the costs relating to optional Building Regulation requirements or the nationally described space standard, authorities may wish to take account of the evidence in the most recent Impact Assessment issued alongside the Housing Standards Review2.
5. The PPG goes on to state that: "Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: * need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes. * viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted. * timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions"3.
Policy HP06: Space Standards for New Housing
6. Table 1: Monitoring Framework: Broad parameters for monitoring policy implementation specifies that in respect of Policy HP06 internal spaces are to be above minimum standards in national space standards. It specifies that the monitoring target is 100% of new homes at or above minimum standards.
7. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon national 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national space standard.
8. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation s ome concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need"
9. Paragraph 8.24 states that in the Viability Study the units are assumed to be in excess of these National Space Standards.
Conclusions
10. The policy is not supported by detailed local evidence to support the imposition of the national space standard. Consequently, the policy would benefit by a mendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
Test of Soundness
11. In view of the above co nsiderations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater clarity regarding affordable hous ing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'posit ively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
12. In the absence of any detailed local evidence to demonstrate the need for setting a local space standard, or evidence that it would be viable for developments of less than 500 dwellings, paragraph A of the policy should be deleted.
Policy
NE13 : Site Allocations in the Green Belt
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy NE13 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. When considering the soundness of Policy NE13, it is very important to have careful regard to national policy.
4. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that Planning Obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests1:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF specifies that Plans should set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
6. The Framework goes on in paragraph 139 to refer to the importance of meeting identified development needs and being able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the Plan period.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
7. The policy specifies that sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for surrounding existing communities and those moving into new homes on site.
8. The supporting text explains that this policy is in place to ensure the cost of losing some Green Belt is repaid through significant benefits to new and existing communities, and to capture the uplift in land value for local benefit. It goes on to state that these benefits are likely to be for different needs depending upon the area, but could involve new community facilities, open space for public use, play areas, and investment in existing facilities. Reference is also made to development needing to contribute to local education and healthcare.
9. We strongly contend that the policy requirements fail to accord with what is required by national planning policy, particularly with regard to the tests for seeking Planning Obligations set out in Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. It would be both inappropriate and unreasonable to expect developers and landowners to make provision to meet the needs of surrounding existing communities, rather than addressing the actual needs that would arise from new development. Such an approach would be unlawful.
10. The Council has recognised in preparing the Local Plan that the huge demand and pressure for development in the Borough provides the exceptional circumstances to alter Green Belt boundaries. Through the plan preparation process, including Sustainability Appraisal, it has recognised that the development of our Client's land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22) would be amongst the least impactful (in terms of Green Belt purposes) and would promote sustainable patterns of development.
11. It is fully evident that the need for chosen sites to then deliver significant community benefits to justify their Green Belt release is not identified in national policy. Furthermore, opportunities for onsite provision of new "significant" community facilities on smaller scale Green Belt releases are limited and any contributions made towards offsite provision should not go beyond the CIL Regulation 122 and 123 tests. Accordingly, we strongly challenge the soundness of this Policy.
12. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
13. It is clear that Brentwood Borough Council are experiencing housing delivery difficulties and as a consequence, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Conclusion
14. The policy would benefit by the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
15. We also consider that the policy wording would be clearer by referrin g to sites being removed from the Green Belt, rather than de allocated.
Test of Soundness
16. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that any community benefits
being sought are legally justified and appropriate . Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most a ppropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'positively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
17. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.
Policy
R22 : Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
Policy R22: Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
2. We very much welcome the fact that our Client's site has been proposed as a housing allocation in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Policy R22) with an indicative dwelling yield of 57 dwellings and a delivery forecast of 2021/22 - 2023/24, and the Council has responded positively to representations that we made at the Regulation 18 stage, which sought to increase the capacity to 57 dwellings and for the trajectory to identify this site coming forward early in the plan period.
3. Our previous representations were supported by a number of technical studies which we trust the Council found helpful in supporting its decision to allocate the site. Through the technical work undertaken to date, it has been demonstrated that the site is sustainable; can be well integrated into the existing transport network; is suitable for development in terms of noise and vibration levels; and can be developed in a way that will enhance the ecological value of the site.
4. We have also demonstrated through the design work undertaken that the site is capable of delivering approximately 57 market and affordable homes together with public open space and an area of children's play.
5. We are pleased to note that this design work has been recognised by the Council, and the site is now identified in the Pre-Submission Local Plan as offering an indicative yield of around 57 dwellings of mixed size and type.
6. A planning application is now being prepared and a pre-application meeting will take place in the near future.
Conclusion
7. We wish to reiterate our strong support for the proposed allocation of land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for around 57 homes (Policy R22) and we look forward to continuing discussions with the Council with respect to bringing the site forward for delivery at the earliest opportunity.
Test of Soundness
8. We consider that Policy R22 of the Draft Local Plan is sound, because it has been 'positively prepared' and is consistent with national policy justified' and 'effective'.

In the absence of any detailed local evidence to demonstrate the need for setting a local space standard, or evidence that it would be viable for developments of less than 500 dwellings, paragraph A of the policy should be deleted.

Policy
HP01 : Housing Mix
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP01 and its supporting text in order to comply with national policy.
Policy HP01: Housing Mix
3. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF refers to the need for planning policies to reflect assessments of local need including in relation to affordable housing and people wishing to commission or build their own homes:
"61. Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes1)".
4. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site. 5. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised2: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)". 6. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to the Council 'seeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community benefits. 7. With regard to 'what accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?' the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states3: 2 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 23b-002-20190315 3 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
"Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual's needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement - see paragraph 011 below. Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied".
8. We consider that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the requirement set out in paragraph A (a)(ii) of the policy for every dwelling built on all residential developments of 10 or more dwellings to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless they are built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwelling standard, is actually justified in terms of either need or viability.
9. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national housing space standards.
10. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation some concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need".
11. Paragraph 6.4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing-mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up-to-date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negotiations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing. Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
12. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is fully committed to ensuring that the housing mix policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a 'one size fits all' approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) and more localised market information, given that different types of housing mixes will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets and recent types of housing provision.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect dispensations from these housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The policy should be amended by the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'seek' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
16. Consequently, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy, as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater flexibility. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither 'justified', nor 'effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.
19. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
Policy
H P 05 : Affordable Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP05: Affordable Housing in order to provide greater flexibility.
Policy HP05: Affordable Housing
3. We support the policy's aim of seeking to deliver as much affordable housing as is possible given the local need for it. However, it is important that the Council also gives adequate regard to viability and the overall cost of adhering to all other Local Plan policy and site-based requirements. 4. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised1: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)".
5. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to
the Council 's eeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community
benefits.
6. Consequently, we do not believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph A. that the Council will require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
7. Neither do we believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph B.(a) that the Council will require that the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (including starter homes, intermediate homes, shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing). It is not evident from reading the content of the Pba Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Part 1 (October 2018) what the precise justification for these tenure split figures is. Nor is it evident whether they have been properly scrutinised with regard to viability.
8. The policy goes on to specify that 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
9. We believe that the current policy wording set out in paragraphs A and B is too inflexible and fails to take adequate account of both viability and the fact that affordable housing requirements will inevitably change over the course of the Plan period as different products emerge and rates of affordable housing need change.
10. We note also that paragraph G. states that the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all residential development falling under use class C3 with the exception of Gypsy & Traveller Pitches or Travelling Showman Plots. This is contrary to national policy as set out in the NPPF.
11. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.
12. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
* provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
* provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
* is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
* is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect exceptions from these affordable housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by minor amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The amendments should include the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'see k' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. We note that paragraph 6. 4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up to date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negot iations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing.
Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
16. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is full y committed to ensuring that the affordable housing policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a one size fits all approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Moni toring Report (AMR) and more localised information, given that different types of affordable housing provision will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets , and other policy and infrastructure requirements .
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provid es greater clarity regarding affordable housing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alte rnatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05:
A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters.
B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy.
C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received.
D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable.
E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site.
F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision.
G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.
Policy
HP06 : S pace Standards for New Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy HP06 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that in relation to 'what optional technical housing standards can local planning authorities set?' that local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access and water, and an optional nationally described space standard. Local planning authorities will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area, and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans1.
4. In consideration of 'how should local planning authorities assess viability concerns for setting optional Building Regulation requirements and the nationally described space standard?', the PPG specifies that local planning authorities should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment. In considering the costs relating to optional Building Regulation requirements or the nationally described space standard, authorities may wish to take account of the evidence in the most recent Impact Assessment issued alongside the Housing Standards Review2.
5. The PPG goes on to state that: "Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: * need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes. * viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted. * timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions"3.
Policy HP06: Space Standards for New Housing
6. Table 1: Monitoring Framework: Broad parameters for monitoring policy implementation specifies that in respect of Policy HP06 internal spaces are to be above minimum standards in national space standards. It specifies that the monitoring target is 100% of new homes at or above minimum standards.
7. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon national 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national space standard.
8. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation s ome concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need"
9. Paragraph 8.24 states that in the Viability Study the units are assumed to be in excess of these National Space Standards.
Conclusions
10. The policy is not supported by detailed local evidence to support the imposition of the national space standard. Consequently, the policy would benefit by a mendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
Test of Soundness
11. In view of the above co nsiderations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater clarity regarding affordable hous ing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'posit ively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
12. In the absence of any detailed local evidence to demonstrate the need for setting a local space standard, or evidence that it would be viable for developments of less than 500 dwellings, paragraph A of the policy should be deleted.
Policy
NE13 : Site Allocations in the Green Belt
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy NE13 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. When considering the soundness of Policy NE13, it is very important to have careful regard to national policy.
4. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that Planning Obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests1:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF specifies that Plans should set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
6. The Framework goes on in paragraph 139 to refer to the importance of meeting identified development needs and being able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the Plan period.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
7. The policy specifies that sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for surrounding existing communities and those moving into new homes on site.
8. The supporting text explains that this policy is in place to ensure the cost of losing some Green Belt is repaid through significant benefits to new and existing communities, and to capture the uplift in land value for local benefit. It goes on to state that these benefits are likely to be for different needs depending upon the area, but could involve new community facilities, open space for public use, play areas, and investment in existing facilities. Reference is also made to development needing to contribute to local education and healthcare.
9. We strongly contend that the policy requirements fail to accord with what is required by national planning policy, particularly with regard to the tests for seeking Planning Obligations set out in Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. It would be both inappropriate and unreasonable to expect developers and landowners to make provision to meet the needs of surrounding existing communities, rather than addressing the actual needs that would arise from new development. Such an approach would be unlawful.
10. The Council has recognised in preparing the Local Plan that the huge demand and pressure for development in the Borough provides the exceptional circumstances to alter Green Belt boundaries. Through the plan preparation process, including Sustainability Appraisal, it has recognised that the development of our Client's land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22) would be amongst the least impactful (in terms of Green Belt purposes) and would promote sustainable patterns of development.
11. It is fully evident that the need for chosen sites to then deliver significant community benefits to justify their Green Belt release is not identified in national policy. Furthermore, opportunities for onsite provision of new "significant" community facilities on smaller scale Green Belt releases are limited and any contributions made towards offsite provision should not go beyond the CIL Regulation 122 and 123 tests. Accordingly, we strongly challenge the soundness of this Policy.
12. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
13. It is clear that Brentwood Borough Council are experiencing housing delivery difficulties and as a consequence, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Conclusion
14. The policy would benefit by the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
15. We also consider that the policy wording would be clearer by referrin g to sites being removed from the Green Belt, rather than de allocated.
Test of Soundness
16. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that any community benefits
being sought are legally justified and appropriate . Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most a ppropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'positively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
17. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.
Policy
R22 : Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
Policy R22: Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
2. We very much welcome the fact that our Client's site has been proposed as a housing allocation in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Policy R22) with an indicative dwelling yield of 57 dwellings and a delivery forecast of 2021/22 - 2023/24, and the Council has responded positively to representations that we made at the Regulation 18 stage, which sought to increase the capacity to 57 dwellings and for the trajectory to identify this site coming forward early in the plan period.
3. Our previous representations were supported by a number of technical studies which we trust the Council found helpful in supporting its decision to allocate the site. Through the technical work undertaken to date, it has been demonstrated that the site is sustainable; can be well integrated into the existing transport network; is suitable for development in terms of noise and vibration levels; and can be developed in a way that will enhance the ecological value of the site.
4. We have also demonstrated through the design work undertaken that the site is capable of delivering approximately 57 market and affordable homes together with public open space and an area of children's play.
5. We are pleased to note that this design work has been recognised by the Council, and the site is now identified in the Pre-Submission Local Plan as offering an indicative yield of around 57 dwellings of mixed size and type.
6. A planning application is now being prepared and a pre-application meeting will take place in the near future.
Conclusion
7. We wish to reiterate our strong support for the proposed allocation of land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for around 57 homes (Policy R22) and we look forward to continuing discussions with the Council with respect to bringing the site forward for delivery at the earliest opportunity.
Test of Soundness
8. We consider that Policy R22 of the Draft Local Plan is sound, because it has been 'positively prepared' and is consistent with national policy justified' and 'effective'.

The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.

Policy
HP01 : Housing Mix
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP01 and its supporting text in order to comply with national policy.
Policy HP01: Housing Mix
3. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF refers to the need for planning policies to reflect assessments of local need including in relation to affordable housing and people wishing to commission or build their own homes:
"61. Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes1)".
4. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site. 5. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised2: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)". 6. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to the Council 'seeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community benefits. 7. With regard to 'what accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?' the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states3: 2 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 23b-002-20190315 3 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
"Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual's needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement - see paragraph 011 below. Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied".
8. We consider that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the requirement set out in paragraph A (a)(ii) of the policy for every dwelling built on all residential developments of 10 or more dwellings to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless they are built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwelling standard, is actually justified in terms of either need or viability.
9. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national housing space standards.
10. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation some concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need".
11. Paragraph 6.4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing-mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up-to-date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negotiations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing. Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
12. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is fully committed to ensuring that the housing mix policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a 'one size fits all' approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) and more localised market information, given that different types of housing mixes will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets and recent types of housing provision.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect dispensations from these housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The policy should be amended by the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'seek' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
16. Consequently, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy, as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater flexibility. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither 'justified', nor 'effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.
19. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
Policy
H P 05 : Affordable Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP05: Affordable Housing in order to provide greater flexibility.
Policy HP05: Affordable Housing
3. We support the policy's aim of seeking to deliver as much affordable housing as is possible given the local need for it. However, it is important that the Council also gives adequate regard to viability and the overall cost of adhering to all other Local Plan policy and site-based requirements. 4. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised1: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)".
5. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to
the Council 's eeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community
benefits.
6. Consequently, we do not believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph A. that the Council will require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
7. Neither do we believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph B.(a) that the Council will require that the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (including starter homes, intermediate homes, shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing). It is not evident from reading the content of the Pba Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Part 1 (October 2018) what the precise justification for these tenure split figures is. Nor is it evident whether they have been properly scrutinised with regard to viability.
8. The policy goes on to specify that 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
9. We believe that the current policy wording set out in paragraphs A and B is too inflexible and fails to take adequate account of both viability and the fact that affordable housing requirements will inevitably change over the course of the Plan period as different products emerge and rates of affordable housing need change.
10. We note also that paragraph G. states that the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all residential development falling under use class C3 with the exception of Gypsy & Traveller Pitches or Travelling Showman Plots. This is contrary to national policy as set out in the NPPF.
11. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.
12. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
* provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
* provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
* is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
* is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect exceptions from these affordable housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by minor amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The amendments should include the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'see k' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. We note that paragraph 6. 4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up to date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negot iations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing.
Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
16. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is full y committed to ensuring that the affordable housing policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a one size fits all approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Moni toring Report (AMR) and more localised information, given that different types of affordable housing provision will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets , and other policy and infrastructure requirements .
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provid es greater clarity regarding affordable housing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alte rnatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05:
A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters.
B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy.
C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received.
D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable.
E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site.
F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision.
G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.
Policy
HP06 : S pace Standards for New Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy HP06 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that in relation to 'what optional technical housing standards can local planning authorities set?' that local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access and water, and an optional nationally described space standard. Local planning authorities will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area, and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans1.
4. In consideration of 'how should local planning authorities assess viability concerns for setting optional Building Regulation requirements and the nationally described space standard?', the PPG specifies that local planning authorities should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment. In considering the costs relating to optional Building Regulation requirements or the nationally described space standard, authorities may wish to take account of the evidence in the most recent Impact Assessment issued alongside the Housing Standards Review2.
5. The PPG goes on to state that: "Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: * need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes. * viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted. * timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions"3.
Policy HP06: Space Standards for New Housing
6. Table 1: Monitoring Framework: Broad parameters for monitoring policy implementation specifies that in respect of Policy HP06 internal spaces are to be above minimum standards in national space standards. It specifies that the monitoring target is 100% of new homes at or above minimum standards.
7. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon national 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national space standard.
8. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation s ome concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need"
9. Paragraph 8.24 states that in the Viability Study the units are assumed to be in excess of these National Space Standards.
Conclusions
10. The policy is not supported by detailed local evidence to support the imposition of the national space standard. Consequently, the policy would benefit by a mendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
Test of Soundness
11. In view of the above co nsiderations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater clarity regarding affordable hous ing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'posit ively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
12. In the absence of any detailed local evidence to demonstrate the need for setting a local space standard, or evidence that it would be viable for developments of less than 500 dwellings, paragraph A of the policy should be deleted.
Policy
NE13 : Site Allocations in the Green Belt
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy NE13 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. When considering the soundness of Policy NE13, it is very important to have careful regard to national policy.
4. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that Planning Obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests1:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF specifies that Plans should set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
6. The Framework goes on in paragraph 139 to refer to the importance of meeting identified development needs and being able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the Plan period.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
7. The policy specifies that sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for surrounding existing communities and those moving into new homes on site.
8. The supporting text explains that this policy is in place to ensure the cost of losing some Green Belt is repaid through significant benefits to new and existing communities, and to capture the uplift in land value for local benefit. It goes on to state that these benefits are likely to be for different needs depending upon the area, but could involve new community facilities, open space for public use, play areas, and investment in existing facilities. Reference is also made to development needing to contribute to local education and healthcare.
9. We strongly contend that the policy requirements fail to accord with what is required by national planning policy, particularly with regard to the tests for seeking Planning Obligations set out in Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. It would be both inappropriate and unreasonable to expect developers and landowners to make provision to meet the needs of surrounding existing communities, rather than addressing the actual needs that would arise from new development. Such an approach would be unlawful.
10. The Council has recognised in preparing the Local Plan that the huge demand and pressure for development in the Borough provides the exceptional circumstances to alter Green Belt boundaries. Through the plan preparation process, including Sustainability Appraisal, it has recognised that the development of our Client's land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22) would be amongst the least impactful (in terms of Green Belt purposes) and would promote sustainable patterns of development.
11. It is fully evident that the need for chosen sites to then deliver significant community benefits to justify their Green Belt release is not identified in national policy. Furthermore, opportunities for onsite provision of new "significant" community facilities on smaller scale Green Belt releases are limited and any contributions made towards offsite provision should not go beyond the CIL Regulation 122 and 123 tests. Accordingly, we strongly challenge the soundness of this Policy.
12. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
13. It is clear that Brentwood Borough Council are experiencing housing delivery difficulties and as a consequence, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Conclusion
14. The policy would benefit by the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
15. We also consider that the policy wording would be clearer by referrin g to sites being removed from the Green Belt, rather than de allocated.
Test of Soundness
16. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that any community benefits
being sought are legally justified and appropriate . Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most a ppropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'positively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
17. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.
Policy
R22 : Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
Policy R22: Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
2. We very much welcome the fact that our Client's site has been proposed as a housing allocation in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Policy R22) with an indicative dwelling yield of 57 dwellings and a delivery forecast of 2021/22 - 2023/24, and the Council has responded positively to representations that we made at the Regulation 18 stage, which sought to increase the capacity to 57 dwellings and for the trajectory to identify this site coming forward early in the plan period.
3. Our previous representations were supported by a number of technical studies which we trust the Council found helpful in supporting its decision to allocate the site. Through the technical work undertaken to date, it has been demonstrated that the site is sustainable; can be well integrated into the existing transport network; is suitable for development in terms of noise and vibration levels; and can be developed in a way that will enhance the ecological value of the site.
4. We have also demonstrated through the design work undertaken that the site is capable of delivering approximately 57 market and affordable homes together with public open space and an area of children's play.
5. We are pleased to note that this design work has been recognised by the Council, and the site is now identified in the Pre-Submission Local Plan as offering an indicative yield of around 57 dwellings of mixed size and type.
6. A planning application is now being prepared and a pre-application meeting will take place in the near future.
Conclusion
7. We wish to reiterate our strong support for the proposed allocation of land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for around 57 homes (Policy R22) and we look forward to continuing discussions with the Council with respect to bringing the site forward for delivery at the earliest opportunity.
Test of Soundness
8. We consider that Policy R22 of the Draft Local Plan is sound, because it has been 'positively prepared' and is consistent with national policy justified' and 'effective'.

Policy
HP01 : Housing Mix
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP01 and its supporting text in order to comply with national policy.
Policy HP01: Housing Mix
3. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF refers to the need for planning policies to reflect assessments of local need including in relation to affordable housing and people wishing to commission or build their own homes:
"61. Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes1)".
4. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site. 5. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised2: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)". 6. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to the Council 'seeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community benefits. 7. With regard to 'what accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?' the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states3: 2 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 23b-002-20190315 3 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
"Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual's needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement - see paragraph 011 below. Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied".
8. We consider that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the requirement set out in paragraph A (a)(ii) of the policy for every dwelling built on all residential developments of 10 or more dwellings to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless they are built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwelling standard, is actually justified in terms of either need or viability.
9. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national housing space standards.
10. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation some concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need".
11. Paragraph 6.4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing-mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up-to-date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negotiations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing. Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
12. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is fully committed to ensuring that the housing mix policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a 'one size fits all' approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) and more localised market information, given that different types of housing mixes will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets and recent types of housing provision.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect dispensations from these housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The policy should be amended by the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'seek' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
16. Consequently, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy, as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater flexibility. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither 'justified', nor 'effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.
19. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
Policy
H P 05 : Affordable Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP05: Affordable Housing in order to provide greater flexibility.
Policy HP05: Affordable Housing
3. We support the policy's aim of seeking to deliver as much affordable housing as is possible given the local need for it. However, it is important that the Council also gives adequate regard to viability and the overall cost of adhering to all other Local Plan policy and site-based requirements. 4. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised1: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)".
5. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to
the Council 's eeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community
benefits.
6. Consequently, we do not believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph A. that the Council will require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
7. Neither do we believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph B.(a) that the Council will require that the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (including starter homes, intermediate homes, shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing). It is not evident from reading the content of the Pba Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Part 1 (October 2018) what the precise justification for these tenure split figures is. Nor is it evident whether they have been properly scrutinised with regard to viability.
8. The policy goes on to specify that 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
9. We believe that the current policy wording set out in paragraphs A and B is too inflexible and fails to take adequate account of both viability and the fact that affordable housing requirements will inevitably change over the course of the Plan period as different products emerge and rates of affordable housing need change.
10. We note also that paragraph G. states that the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all residential development falling under use class C3 with the exception of Gypsy & Traveller Pitches or Travelling Showman Plots. This is contrary to national policy as set out in the NPPF.
11. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.
12. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
* provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
* provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
* is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
* is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect exceptions from these affordable housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by minor amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The amendments should include the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'see k' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. We note that paragraph 6. 4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up to date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negot iations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing.
Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
16. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is full y committed to ensuring that the affordable housing policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a one size fits all approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Moni toring Report (AMR) and more localised information, given that different types of affordable housing provision will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets , and other policy and infrastructure requirements .
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provid es greater clarity regarding affordable housing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alte rnatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05:
A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters.
B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy.
C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received.
D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable.
E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site.
F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision.
G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.
Policy
HP06 : S pace Standards for New Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy HP06 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that in relation to 'what optional technical housing standards can local planning authorities set?' that local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access and water, and an optional nationally described space standard. Local planning authorities will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area, and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans1.
4. In consideration of 'how should local planning authorities assess viability concerns for setting optional Building Regulation requirements and the nationally described space standard?', the PPG specifies that local planning authorities should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment. In considering the costs relating to optional Building Regulation requirements or the nationally described space standard, authorities may wish to take account of the evidence in the most recent Impact Assessment issued alongside the Housing Standards Review2.
5. The PPG goes on to state that: "Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: * need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes. * viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted. * timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions"3.
Policy HP06: Space Standards for New Housing
6. Table 1: Monitoring Framework: Broad parameters for monitoring policy implementation specifies that in respect of Policy HP06 internal spaces are to be above minimum standards in national space standards. It specifies that the monitoring target is 100% of new homes at or above minimum standards.
7. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon national 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national space standard.
8. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation s ome concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need"
9. Paragraph 8.24 states that in the Viability Study the units are assumed to be in excess of these National Space Standards.
Conclusions
10. The policy is not supported by detailed local evidence to support the imposition of the national space standard. Consequently, the policy would benefit by a mendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
Test of Soundness
11. In view of the above co nsiderations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater clarity regarding affordable hous ing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'posit ively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
12. In the absence of any detailed local evidence to demonstrate the need for setting a local space standard, or evidence that it would be viable for developments of less than 500 dwellings, paragraph A of the policy should be deleted.
Policy
NE13 : Site Allocations in the Green Belt
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy NE13 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. When considering the soundness of Policy NE13, it is very important to have careful regard to national policy.
4. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that Planning Obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests1:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF specifies that Plans should set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
6. The Framework goes on in paragraph 139 to refer to the importance of meeting identified development needs and being able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the Plan period.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
7. The policy specifies that sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for surrounding existing communities and those moving into new homes on site.
8. The supporting text explains that this policy is in place to ensure the cost of losing some Green Belt is repaid through significant benefits to new and existing communities, and to capture the uplift in land value for local benefit. It goes on to state that these benefits are likely to be for different needs depending upon the area, but could involve new community facilities, open space for public use, play areas, and investment in existing facilities. Reference is also made to development needing to contribute to local education and healthcare.
9. We strongly contend that the policy requirements fail to accord with what is required by national planning policy, particularly with regard to the tests for seeking Planning Obligations set out in Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. It would be both inappropriate and unreasonable to expect developers and landowners to make provision to meet the needs of surrounding existing communities, rather than addressing the actual needs that would arise from new development. Such an approach would be unlawful.
10. The Council has recognised in preparing the Local Plan that the huge demand and pressure for development in the Borough provides the exceptional circumstances to alter Green Belt boundaries. Through the plan preparation process, including Sustainability Appraisal, it has recognised that the development of our Client's land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22) would be amongst the least impactful (in terms of Green Belt purposes) and would promote sustainable patterns of development.
11. It is fully evident that the need for chosen sites to then deliver significant community benefits to justify their Green Belt release is not identified in national policy. Furthermore, opportunities for onsite provision of new "significant" community facilities on smaller scale Green Belt releases are limited and any contributions made towards offsite provision should not go beyond the CIL Regulation 122 and 123 tests. Accordingly, we strongly challenge the soundness of this Policy.
12. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
13. It is clear that Brentwood Borough Council are experiencing housing delivery difficulties and as a consequence, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Conclusion
14. The policy would benefit by the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
15. We also consider that the policy wording would be clearer by referrin g to sites being removed from the Green Belt, rather than de allocated.
Test of Soundness
16. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that any community benefits
being sought are legally justified and appropriate . Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most a ppropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'positively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
17. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.
Policy
R22 : Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
Policy R22: Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
2. We very much welcome the fact that our Client's site has been proposed as a housing allocation in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Policy R22) with an indicative dwelling yield of 57 dwellings and a delivery forecast of 2021/22 - 2023/24, and the Council has responded positively to representations that we made at the Regulation 18 stage, which sought to increase the capacity to 57 dwellings and for the trajectory to identify this site coming forward early in the plan period.
3. Our previous representations were supported by a number of technical studies which we trust the Council found helpful in supporting its decision to allocate the site. Through the technical work undertaken to date, it has been demonstrated that the site is sustainable; can be well integrated into the existing transport network; is suitable for development in terms of noise and vibration levels; and can be developed in a way that will enhance the ecological value of the site.
4. We have also demonstrated through the design work undertaken that the site is capable of delivering approximately 57 market and affordable homes together with public open space and an area of children's play.
5. We are pleased to note that this design work has been recognised by the Council, and the site is now identified in the Pre-Submission Local Plan as offering an indicative yield of around 57 dwellings of mixed size and type.
6. A planning application is now being prepared and a pre-application meeting will take place in the near future.
Conclusion
7. We wish to reiterate our strong support for the proposed allocation of land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for around 57 homes (Policy R22) and we look forward to continuing discussions with the Council with respect to bringing the site forward for delivery at the earliest opportunity.
Test of Soundness
8. We consider that Policy R22 of the Draft Local Plan is sound, because it has been 'positively prepared' and is consistent with national policy justified' and 'effective'.