The Council should have considered the merits of identifying additional, suitable sites to deliver in the short-medium term, including those which provide specialist accommodation to meet an identified local need, such as the land west of Crossby Close (site 073). As discussed above and shown in Appendix B, this represents a suitable site with local support for specialist accommodation that has been overlooked.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of M Scott Properties Ltd (Scott Properties) pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (the Council) Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) (Focussed Changes). They are submitted in addition to and should be read alongside those submitted in response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation held in February - March 2019.
1.2 Scott Properties have an interest in land to the west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing (the Site), which has been actively promoted as part of the Council's plan-making process, site reference 073 (AECOM (January 2019) SA Report). Previous representations have been made at various stages of the Local Plan, including the Call for Sites exercises and each consultation regarding the emerging Local Plan.
1.3 Scott Properties, in their capacity as a provider of specialist accommodation, are promoting the Site for specialist accommodation for those aged 55 and over, as well as those with, or supporting someone with a disability, in order to address an identified and unmet need locally and within the Borough.
1.4 Our earlier response to the Regulation 19 Consultation included evidence which demonstrated the existence of a local need for specialist accommodation within Mountnessing, and support for this type of accommodation through an online local needs consultation which received 92 positive responses.
1.5 These representations raise concerns as to:
 the impact of the higher Local Housing Need (LHN) figure;
 the lack of reasonable alternatives considered in making the Focussed Changes;
 the ability of the Focussed Changes to meet local housing needs, particularly older people; and
 the robustness of the SHLAA in light of the Focussed Changes.
2.0 Higher Local Housing Need (LHN)
2.1 These representations seek to focus on the proposed focussed changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (PSLP), set out in the consultation draft of the Focussed Changes. However, there are inevitable consequences resulting from the proposed amendments that draw together matters not specifically intended to be the focus of the addendum. We highlight these to ensure there is a holistic understanding of the effects of the changes proposed in the addendum and changes to national and local circumstances that should be considered prior to submission of the Plan.
2.2 Since the publication of the Pre-Submission Local Plan, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has been updated (in February 2019, during the previous Regulation 19 consultation) and confirms that the 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report Addendum - October 2019 (the SA Addendum) confirms at paragraph 2.9.3 that the LHN figure is now understood to equate to 454 dwellings per annum (dpa).
2.3 We expressed our concerns in our response to the previous Regulation 19 representations that there was insufficient flexibility within the PSLP's target figure of 456 dpa, which incorporates a 20% buffer on the housing requirement of 350 dpa as set out therein.2 Based on the actual housing need figure, as confirmed at 454 dpa within the SA Addendum, there now exists a buffer of just two dwellings per annum, which does not provide sufficient flexibility to ensure the Borough's housing needs are met. This is confirmed in paragraph 2.9.6 of the SA Addendum, which states that:
"the proposed supply figure of 456 dpa can no longer be said to put in place a significant 'buffer' over-and above the housing requirement."
2.4 In addition, it also highlights the risks of delays in delivery, as a result of increasing the housing supply to be provided at Dunton Hill Garden Village (DHGV) within the Plan period, confirming the importance of a buffer over-and-above the housing requirement for this reason. The Nathaniel Litchfield Study From Start to Finish (2016) confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5 years for a planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for schemes of 1,000 units and over. This not only confirms that it is unlikely that DHGV will deliver as early as 2022/23 as stated in the housing trajectory, but also points towards a necessity to ensure there is adequate provision within the Plan to meet housing requirements in the short-term. Within our earlier representations we stated that is was unrealistic that DHGV could deliver 100 dwellings as soon as 2022/23 as set out in the PSLP. Given that this was predicated (partly) on the adoption of the Local Plan in 2019, this timeframe is now clearly unrealistic and adoption by the end of 2020 remains challenging, with obvious implications for the proposed trajectory.
2.5 We consider that the Focussed Changes should have included an update to the LHN and the trajectory, without which the Plan can no longer be considered sound. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires plan-makers to positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change (our emphasis). It is considered that this is now not the case as a result of the updated LHN, given the Focussed Changes make no attempt to positively seek opportunities to meet development needs within the Borough. This is also set out in our comments regarding the lack of consideration of reasonable alternatives. This renders the plan inconsistent with national policy and unsound.
2.6 Paragraph 2.9.3 of the SA Addendum states that:
"It is fair to conclude that there is naturally a degree of increased risk associated with reliance on DHGV, as this is a large and complex site associated with delivery challenges, including in respect of infrastructure delivery; however, discussions between the Council and the site promoter have served to indicate that the 70 homes additionally assigned to the site through the Focussed Changes are deliverable within the plan period, and indeed can be delivered in a timely fashion such that the Local Plan housing delivery trajectory is unaffected."
2.7 The updated housing trajectory in the Focussed Changes shows the 70 homes reallocated to DHGV, as a result of the decreases from Focused Changes numbers.2-5, between years 15 and 17 (2030-2033), which does not represent delivery in a 'timely fashion', nor is the trajectory unaffected as a result. The Focussed Changes reduce the housing delivery within the earlier years of the Plan and thus the Plan's ability to meet its needs within those years. Our concern as to the robustness of the decision to adopted a stepped trajectory as raised in our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation remains. We consider that the effect of the Focussed Changes in further reducing the Plan's ability to meet its needs within the earlier years of the Plan; a concern that we raised in our previous Regulation 19 response.
2.8 We have concerns as to the accuracy of the updated housing trajectory, which shows an increase in the Total Housing Provision within years 12 and 13, but no corresponding increases within the expected delivery from the Plan Allocations. Furthermore, the additional housing allocated to DHGV in year 17 does not correspond with the Total Housing Provision. This results in an over-estimated supply within years 12 and 13, and an under-estimation in year 17. We would expect the Council to clarify these errors, as it is casts uncertainty as to the exact effect of the Focussed Changes on the housing trajectory.
2.9 The table attached at Appendix A shows the updated housing trajectory (assuming a Total Housing Provision that aligns with expected delivery of the allocations) against the updated LHN. This shows that by year 7 (2022/23) there will be a deficit of 1,151 dwellings, and this is based on optimistic delivery rates for sites without planning permission expected to deliver in year 5 and onwards, so likely represents the best-case scenario. It also assumes that DHGV will commence delivery as early as year 7 (2022/23), which, as stated above and within our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, is an unrealistic expectation.
2.10 As a result of the increased LHN, the Total Housing Provision within the Plan provides a buffer of only 69 dwellings over the Plan's total housing requirement, which equates to just 0.9% of the requirement across the Plan period. The PSLP sought to provide a buffer of 20% against the housing requirement and we would highlight that the Chelmsford Local Plan, which has recently been examined, proposes a 20% buffer and this has been found to be suitable by the Inspector. The situation for the PSLP is that, again, the Plan demonstrates a lack of flexibility contrary to best practice, contrary to the rationale of the PSLP itself and contrary to Paragraph 11(a) of the NPPF. The Plan is therefore not positively prepared, nor will it be effective in meeting its needs across the Plan period.
3.0 Ability to Meet Local Housing Need (LHN)
3.1 Our representations to the previous Regulation 19 consultation highlighted the ageing population within the Borough, as recognised within paragraph 6.6 of the PSLP, and our concerns as to the lack of provision for specialist accommodation within the PSLP to meet present and future needs.
3.2 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan SA Report October 2019 (the SA) states at paragraph 9.5 that:
"There is also a need to address the health inequalities that exist within the population, and which are set to worsen, including because of the ageing population."
3.3 The Focussed Changes reduce the Plan's ability to meet local needs, particularly those of an ageing population, firstly, by reducing housing numbers in areas where housing needs are likely to be the highest, as quoted within the SA Addendum.3
3.4 Policies R25 and R26 require a provision for a minimum of 25% of the dwellings provided to be made available to those with a local connection, or to those aged 50 and over. The reduction in the number of dwellings not only reduces the potential availability of housing suitable for older people, but also raises concerns as to viability, as recognised within the SA Addendum. It states at paragraph 2.9.2 that:
"A reduced number of homes will have implications for scheme viability, and it is noted that these sites are subject to a policy requirement in respect of reserving a minimum of 25% of the proposed dwellings to be reserved for people with a strong and demonstrable local connection or those over 50 years of age; however, it is not possible to conclude any significant risk of the schemes becoming undeliverable."
3.5 Although this concludes that the schemes themselves may not become undeliverable, there is a real possibility that viability will affect the provision for these 25% homes for local people and those aged 50 and over coming forward through these allocations.
3.6 In addition, the Brentwood Local Development Plan Health Impact Assessment Version 3 October 2019 (HIA) notes that the reduction in dwellings on allocation R19 means that no wheelchair accessible dwellings will be required on site, taking it below the 60 dwelling threshold as set out in Policy HP01 of the PSLP.
3.7 Although the reduction in housing numbers on R18-19 and R25-26 will be redistributed to DHGV as part of the Focussed Changes, we would reiterate our concerns in relation to the provision and delivery of specialist accommodation at DHGV. Firstly, as stated above, the redistributed housing is not expected to be delivered at DHGV until year 12, reducing the ability of the Plan to address needs earlier in the Plan period.
3.8 Secondly, the provision for specialist accommodation at DHGV is to be delivered in accordance with Policy HP04. Paragraph 9.9.4 of the SA states that the provision of specialist accommodation at DHGV is not clear. Our response to the Regulation 19 consultation also raised concerns as to the lack of clarity regarding the definition of specialist accommodation within the supporting text of this Policy. The supporting text fails to give an accurate representation as to which type of specialist accommodation the Plan is seeking to deliver and for which group(s).
3.9 In light of this, it is considered that the Focussed Changes negatively affect the delivery of specialist accommodation for older people within the Plan period. We consider that the identification of additional suitable sites to meet needs within the short to medium term of the Plan period would enable the Plan to meet its housing needs specifically for older people. In the absence of this, we consider the Plan to be unsound and in direct conflict with the 'Housing for older and disabled people' 26 June 2019 addition to the NPPG.
4.0 Lack of Reasonable Alternatives Considered
4.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan SA Report Addendum (October 2019) (the SA Addendum) states at paragraph 1.2.5 that as part of preparing the Focussed Changes and updating the SA, there was not considered to be a need to give further formal consideration to reasonable alternatives, as it was considered unlikely that alternatives would lead to notably different side effects. This was in reliance of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) paragraph 009 Reference ID: 11-009-20140306, which states:
"The sustainability appraisal should only focus on what is needed to assess the likely significant effects of the plan."
4.2 We consider that the conclusions as to the effects of the Focused Changes, particularly in respect of the 'Housing' objective as stated within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report October 2019 (SA) clearly demonstrate that reasonable alternatives should have been considered.
4.3 The SA states that there will be 'uncertain negative implications' for the achievement of the 'Housing' objectives.4 This is on the basis that the housing has been reduced in areas where needs are likely to be highest, and, has been moved to Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), potentially increasing the risk of not delivering the housing requirement. It also makes reference to the higher LHN figure. In comparison, the PSLP, prior to the Focussed Changes, was assessed as likely to have 'significant positive effects' on the basis of ability to meet the LHN and provide for specialist accommodation.
4.4 In our previous representations to the Regulation 19 consultation, we disputed this conclusion and the ability of the plan to deliver specialist accommodation. A number of concerns were received from respondents to the Regulation 19 consultation as to the effectiveness of the Plan to meet the needs of older people, which should have prompted the Council to review the strategy in this regard as part of the Focussed Changes. The Site (reference 073) has consistently been promoted for specialist accommodation for older people, to meet a locally identified need within Mountnessing, as detailed in our previous representations, and represents a missed opportunity. Not only would this help to address a locally identified need, it would also enable delivery in the early years of the plan period; two concerns that were prevalent in the responses to the Regulation 19 consultation. This further supports the argument that reasonable alternatives to the Focussed Changes should have been considered.
4.5 Despite this, the SA then goes onto conclude that the assessment of the PSLP against the housing objective (significant positive effects) 'broadly holds true' for the Focussed Changes (uncertain negative effects). This is clearly not the case, and it is considered that this conclusion is both incorrect and misleading.
4.6 It is considered that the change from 'significant positive effects' (PSLP) to 'uncertain negative implications' (Focussed Changes) in achieving the 'Housing' objective amounts to a significant effect of the Focussed Changes. Therefore, in accordance with the PPG (as referenced above), consideration should have been given to reasonable alternatives, and the definitive conclusion that alternatives would not have led to notably different side effects is unjustified. As a minimum, the Council should have considered reasonable alternatives to ascertain whether there was a more suitable strategy which would enable the Plan to meet its housing needs, thus enabling the Plan to achieve a more positive and beneficial outcome in respect of the 'Housing' objective. We consider this to be fundamentally important to ensuring a sound Local Plan.
4.7 Given the decrease in housing within areas with the highest needs as raised in the SA, regard should have been had to allocating additional suitable sites to meet housing needs at a local level (which the plan failed to do prior to the Focussed Changes). This would help to address local housing requirements, including the provision of specialist accommodation, as well as providing a more substantial buffer over and above the increased LHN and help to minimise the risks associated with potential delays in delivery at DHGV; a concern that is highlighted in the SA.
4.8 Following from this, it would seem highly appropriate to consider settlements on key transport corridors such as Mountnessing, that contain sites that scored better than many of the allocated sites in the SA such as Site 073 (Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School), that could deliver housing to meet identified local needs within the first 5 years of the Plan, before choosing, what should be a last resort given the trajectory already discussed, increasing housing numbers at DHGV. Our representations to the previous Regulation 19 consultation contained evidence of local support via a social media consultation, which received 96 responses in total, all of whom were interested in a new build bungalow specifically for those aged 55 and over on the Site.5 Appendix B contains a summary of this. This demonstrates a locally supported site which is a suitable alternative to the Focussed Changes, yet one which has been overlooked.
4.9 The Plan has failed to consider alternative, suitable sites, to balance the reduction in housing numbers in the sites subject to the Focussed Changes when identifying suitable solutions to correct this.
5.0 Robustness of SLAA
5.1 We argued clearly within previous representations that the approach to assessing sites within the SA using the 'traffic light' scoring system was primitive, inconsistent and unjustified, which resulted in subjective and ill-informed conclusions. This is clearly shown in relation to the Site - land west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing, as shown below:
 the Site scored higher than many of the allocated sites, yet was not allocated due to 'potential highways access issues' despite previous representations confirming Essex County Council Highways have no objection to the access, and which agree with the proposed access strategy;
 the scoring system as to a Site's classification of agricultural land (criterion 17) the dataset for which, as confirmed in the SA, is described as 'of a poor resolution.' This resulted in some sites being scored 'red' or 'amber' when in fact they were brownfield or non-agricultural land. The Site was incorrectly assessed as 'amber' for this criterion, yet it has not been in agricultural use since the current owner's acquisition in 1995 (with evidence adduced as part of our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation to support this);
5.2 This further demonstrates inconsistencies and inaccuracies within the site assessment process, which we consider fails to demonstrate that the Plan has been positively prepared. However, despite pointing these out, the Focussed Changes do not include any rectification of these errors, and instead has taken a selective and non-transparent approach to amend existing allocations in response to objections received in the previous Regulation 19 consultation. We consider that this should have formed part of the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the Focussed Changes, which, as discussed above, was unjustifiably overlooked by the Council, in preference for amending the evidence base to suit the desired outcome. As a result, the Plan is not justified and cannot be considered sound.
6.0 The Unclear Approach to R18, R19, R25 and R26
6.1. The Council has decided to reduce the densities on allocations R18, R19, R25 and R26 (Focussed Changes 2-5), citing a considerable number of representations raising concerns as to the suitability of the sites for the proposed densities as the justification.
6.2. In redistributing the housing numbers from the above allocations to DHGV, the large number of objections received during the previous Regulation 19 consultation in respect of DHGV, including from statutory consultees, have been ignored. Instead, the Focussed Changes have gone against a number of comments, which highlight the unrealistic delivery timetable, and the need for sites which can deliver in the early years of the Plan.
6.3. There were also objections received in respect of other allocations within the Plan, as well as comments in respect of omission sites, such as our response to that consultation, which sought to clarify inaccuracies about the Site within the site assessment and show that earlier concerns regarding the access arrangements had been addressed.
6.4. The Addendum of Focussed Changes explains that the total loss of 70 homes across the four aforementioned sites will be off-set by altering another allocation to increase the number of new homes provided at Dunton Hill Garden Village (Focussed Change 1). However, the addendum does confirm that the overall number of new homes will not be increased, merely that there will be a faster rate of delivery at Dunton Hills Garden Village, resulting in more dwellings being provided before 2033 than previously projected (resulting in fewer post-2033).
6.5. We have a number of concerns with the proposed approach to addressing the shortfall that Focussed Changes 2-5 necessitate by simply altering Dunton Hills Garden Village to deliver at a greater rate than previously calculated, and at just a fast enough rate to account for the shortfall created by the need to reduce the proposed capacities for site R18, R19, R25, and R26. The lack of clarity in how both the reduction and the increase have been justified is unhelpful in being able to comment on the justification for the Focused Changes.
7.0 Cross-boundary and Statutory Consultee Objections
7.1. Basildon Borough Council have objected to the DHGV allocation in its response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, in which it raised concerns regarding the cross-boundary impacts of this site, questioning the soundness of the Plan in this respect. Similarly, Essex County Council also raised concerns in respect of the transport evidence base for DHGV. As part of the Focussed Changes, the Council have seemingly overlooked these comments, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, seeking instead to direct more housing numbers to this allocation within the Plan period, and failing to consider any reasonable alternatives.
7.2. As for the key concerns raised, it is concerning that the site assessments undertaken to date have failed to identify the numerous cited issues raised by respondents. Notwithstanding the inaccuracies in the assessment of our Site (land west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing) as mentioned above and in detail in our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, this casts further doubt on the robustness and the overall accuracy of the site assessment process which underpins the allocations within the Plan. This also substantiates our previous concerns that the site assessment process was inadequate, and therefore potentially undermines the remaining allocations within the Plan, as it is unclear as to whether any significant objection was raised in relation to those through the previous Regulation 19 consultation.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1. We consider that the Plan remains unsound as a result of the Focussed Changes. The higher confirmed LHN has not been incorporated within the Plan, nor the effects of this on whether the Plan should identify a suitable buffer to provide flexibility to adapt to rapid change. The Plan is therefore failing to meet the requirements of the NPPF and failing to meet the identified need for the Borough. The Focussed Changes do not demonstrate that the Plan will be effective in meeting housing needs, given it seeks to re-direct housing delivery from the short-term to the later years of the Plan, further decreasing its ability to meet its needs early in the Plan period. This is particularly concerning given the results of the Housing Delivery Test for the Borough (2019).
8.2. The trajectory as set out in the Focussed Changes remains overly optimistic, with the concerns as to the effects of a slippage in delivery at DHGV raised forming part of the reason for the SA conclusions that the Focussed Changes will have 'uncertain negative effects' on the 'Housing' objective. We strongly disagree with the SA's further conclusions that the assessment of the PSLP against the 'Housing' objective (significant positive effects) 'broadly holds true' for the Focussed Changes (uncertain negative effects).
8.3. The decision to discount the need for consideration of reasonable alternatives is inconsistent with national policy, and unjustified. This is apparent from the SA conclusions (discussed above), and we are highly concerned that this has reduced the ability of the Plan to meet the housing needs of the Borough going forward. The Council should have considered the merits of identifying additional, suitable sites to deliver in the short-medium term, including those which provide specialist accommodation to meet an identified local need, such as the land west of Crossby Close (site 073). As discussed above and shown in Appendix B, this represents a suitable site with local support for specialist accommodation that has been overlooked.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of M Scott Properties Ltd (Scott Properties) pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (the Council) Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) (Focussed Changes). They are submitted in addition to and should be read alongside those submitted in response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation held in February - March 2019.
1.2 Scott Properties have an interest in land to the west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing (the Site), which has been actively promoted as part of the Council's plan-making process, site reference 073 (AECOM (January 2019) SA Report). Previous representations have been made at various stages of the Local Plan, including the Call for Sites exercises and each consultation regarding the emerging Local Plan.
1.3 Scott Properties, in their capacity as a provider of specialist accommodation, are promoting the Site for specialist accommodation for those aged 55 and over, as well as those with, or supporting someone with a disability, in order to address an identified and unmet need locally and within the Borough.
1.4 Our earlier response to the Regulation 19 Consultation included evidence which demonstrated the existence of a local need for specialist accommodation within Mountnessing, and support for this type of accommodation through an online local needs consultation which received 92 positive responses.
1.5 These representations raise concerns as to:
 the impact of the higher Local Housing Need (LHN) figure;
 the lack of reasonable alternatives considered in making the Focussed Changes;
 the ability of the Focussed Changes to meet local housing needs, particularly older people; and
 the robustness of the SHLAA in light of the Focussed Changes.
2.0 Higher Local Housing Need (LHN)
2.1 These representations seek to focus on the proposed focussed changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (PSLP), set out in the consultation draft of the Focussed Changes. However, there are inevitable consequences resulting from the proposed amendments that draw together matters not specifically intended to be the focus of the addendum. We highlight these to ensure there is a holistic understanding of the effects of the changes proposed in the addendum and changes to national and local circumstances that should be considered prior to submission of the Plan.
2.2 Since the publication of the Pre-Submission Local Plan, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has been updated (in February 2019, during the previous Regulation 19 consultation) and confirms that the 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report Addendum - October 2019 (the SA Addendum) confirms at paragraph 2.9.3 that the LHN figure is now understood to equate to 454 dwellings per annum (dpa).
2.3 We expressed our concerns in our response to the previous Regulation 19 representations that there was insufficient flexibility within the PSLP's target figure of 456 dpa, which incorporates a 20% buffer on the housing requirement of 350 dpa as set out therein.2 Based on the actual housing need figure, as confirmed at 454 dpa within the SA Addendum, there now exists a buffer of just two dwellings per annum, which does not provide sufficient flexibility to ensure the Borough's housing needs are met. This is confirmed in paragraph 2.9.6 of the SA Addendum, which states that:
"the proposed supply figure of 456 dpa can no longer be said to put in place a significant 'buffer' over-and above the housing requirement."
2.4 In addition, it also highlights the risks of delays in delivery, as a result of increasing the housing supply to be provided at Dunton Hill Garden Village (DHGV) within the Plan period, confirming the importance of a buffer over-and-above the housing requirement for this reason. The Nathaniel Litchfield Study From Start to Finish (2016) confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5 years for a planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for schemes of 1,000 units and over. This not only confirms that it is unlikely that DHGV will deliver as early as 2022/23 as stated in the housing trajectory, but also points towards a necessity to ensure there is adequate provision within the Plan to meet housing requirements in the short-term. Within our earlier representations we stated that is was unrealistic that DHGV could deliver 100 dwellings as soon as 2022/23 as set out in the PSLP. Given that this was predicated (partly) on the adoption of the Local Plan in 2019, this timeframe is now clearly unrealistic and adoption by the end of 2020 remains challenging, with obvious implications for the proposed trajectory.
2.5 We consider that the Focussed Changes should have included an update to the LHN and the trajectory, without which the Plan can no longer be considered sound. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires plan-makers to positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change (our emphasis). It is considered that this is now not the case as a result of the updated LHN, given the Focussed Changes make no attempt to positively seek opportunities to meet development needs within the Borough. This is also set out in our comments regarding the lack of consideration of reasonable alternatives. This renders the plan inconsistent with national policy and unsound.
2.6 Paragraph 2.9.3 of the SA Addendum states that:
"It is fair to conclude that there is naturally a degree of increased risk associated with reliance on DHGV, as this is a large and complex site associated with delivery challenges, including in respect of infrastructure delivery; however, discussions between the Council and the site promoter have served to indicate that the 70 homes additionally assigned to the site through the Focussed Changes are deliverable within the plan period, and indeed can be delivered in a timely fashion such that the Local Plan housing delivery trajectory is unaffected."
2.7 The updated housing trajectory in the Focussed Changes shows the 70 homes reallocated to DHGV, as a result of the decreases from Focused Changes numbers.2-5, between years 15 and 17 (2030-2033), which does not represent delivery in a 'timely fashion', nor is the trajectory unaffected as a result. The Focussed Changes reduce the housing delivery within the earlier years of the Plan and thus the Plan's ability to meet its needs within those years. Our concern as to the robustness of the decision to adopted a stepped trajectory as raised in our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation remains. We consider that the effect of the Focussed Changes in further reducing the Plan's ability to meet its needs within the earlier years of the Plan; a concern that we raised in our previous Regulation 19 response.
2.8 We have concerns as to the accuracy of the updated housing trajectory, which shows an increase in the Total Housing Provision within years 12 and 13, but no corresponding increases within the expected delivery from the Plan Allocations. Furthermore, the additional housing allocated to DHGV in year 17 does not correspond with the Total Housing Provision. This results in an over-estimated supply within years 12 and 13, and an under-estimation in year 17. We would expect the Council to clarify these errors, as it is casts uncertainty as to the exact effect of the Focussed Changes on the housing trajectory.
2.9 The table attached at Appendix A shows the updated housing trajectory (assuming a Total Housing Provision that aligns with expected delivery of the allocations) against the updated LHN. This shows that by year 7 (2022/23) there will be a deficit of 1,151 dwellings, and this is based on optimistic delivery rates for sites without planning permission expected to deliver in year 5 and onwards, so likely represents the best-case scenario. It also assumes that DHGV will commence delivery as early as year 7 (2022/23), which, as stated above and within our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, is an unrealistic expectation.
2.10 As a result of the increased LHN, the Total Housing Provision within the Plan provides a buffer of only 69 dwellings over the Plan's total housing requirement, which equates to just 0.9% of the requirement across the Plan period. The PSLP sought to provide a buffer of 20% against the housing requirement and we would highlight that the Chelmsford Local Plan, which has recently been examined, proposes a 20% buffer and this has been found to be suitable by the Inspector. The situation for the PSLP is that, again, the Plan demonstrates a lack of flexibility contrary to best practice, contrary to the rationale of the PSLP itself and contrary to Paragraph 11(a) of the NPPF. The Plan is therefore not positively prepared, nor will it be effective in meeting its needs across the Plan period.
3.0 Ability to Meet Local Housing Need (LHN)
3.1 Our representations to the previous Regulation 19 consultation highlighted the ageing population within the Borough, as recognised within paragraph 6.6 of the PSLP, and our concerns as to the lack of provision for specialist accommodation within the PSLP to meet present and future needs.
3.2 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan SA Report October 2019 (the SA) states at paragraph 9.5 that:
"There is also a need to address the health inequalities that exist within the population, and which are set to worsen, including because of the ageing population."
3.3 The Focussed Changes reduce the Plan's ability to meet local needs, particularly those of an ageing population, firstly, by reducing housing numbers in areas where housing needs are likely to be the highest, as quoted within the SA Addendum.3
3.4 Policies R25 and R26 require a provision for a minimum of 25% of the dwellings provided to be made available to those with a local connection, or to those aged 50 and over. The reduction in the number of dwellings not only reduces the potential availability of housing suitable for older people, but also raises concerns as to viability, as recognised within the SA Addendum. It states at paragraph 2.9.2 that:
"A reduced number of homes will have implications for scheme viability, and it is noted that these sites are subject to a policy requirement in respect of reserving a minimum of 25% of the proposed dwellings to be reserved for people with a strong and demonstrable local connection or those over 50 years of age; however, it is not possible to conclude any significant risk of the schemes becoming undeliverable."
3.5 Although this concludes that the schemes themselves may not become undeliverable, there is a real possibility that viability will affect the provision for these 25% homes for local people and those aged 50 and over coming forward through these allocations.
3.6 In addition, the Brentwood Local Development Plan Health Impact Assessment Version 3 October 2019 (HIA) notes that the reduction in dwellings on allocation R19 means that no wheelchair accessible dwellings will be required on site, taking it below the 60 dwelling threshold as set out in Policy HP01 of the PSLP.
3.7 Although the reduction in housing numbers on R18-19 and R25-26 will be redistributed to DHGV as part of the Focussed Changes, we would reiterate our concerns in relation to the provision and delivery of specialist accommodation at DHGV. Firstly, as stated above, the redistributed housing is not expected to be delivered at DHGV until year 12, reducing the ability of the Plan to address needs earlier in the Plan period.
3.8 Secondly, the provision for specialist accommodation at DHGV is to be delivered in accordance with Policy HP04. Paragraph 9.9.4 of the SA states that the provision of specialist accommodation at DHGV is not clear. Our response to the Regulation 19 consultation also raised concerns as to the lack of clarity regarding the definition of specialist accommodation within the supporting text of this Policy. The supporting text fails to give an accurate representation as to which type of specialist accommodation the Plan is seeking to deliver and for which group(s).
3.9 In light of this, it is considered that the Focussed Changes negatively affect the delivery of specialist accommodation for older people within the Plan period. We consider that the identification of additional suitable sites to meet needs within the short to medium term of the Plan period would enable the Plan to meet its housing needs specifically for older people. In the absence of this, we consider the Plan to be unsound and in direct conflict with the 'Housing for older and disabled people' 26 June 2019 addition to the NPPG.
4.0 Lack of Reasonable Alternatives Considered
4.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan SA Report Addendum (October 2019) (the SA Addendum) states at paragraph 1.2.5 that as part of preparing the Focussed Changes and updating the SA, there was not considered to be a need to give further formal consideration to reasonable alternatives, as it was considered unlikely that alternatives would lead to notably different side effects. This was in reliance of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) paragraph 009 Reference ID: 11-009-20140306, which states:
"The sustainability appraisal should only focus on what is needed to assess the likely significant effects of the plan."
4.2 We consider that the conclusions as to the effects of the Focused Changes, particularly in respect of the 'Housing' objective as stated within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report October 2019 (SA) clearly demonstrate that reasonable alternatives should have been considered.
4.3 The SA states that there will be 'uncertain negative implications' for the achievement of the 'Housing' objectives.4 This is on the basis that the housing has been reduced in areas where needs are likely to be highest, and, has been moved to Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), potentially increasing the risk of not delivering the housing requirement. It also makes reference to the higher LHN figure. In comparison, the PSLP, prior to the Focussed Changes, was assessed as likely to have 'significant positive effects' on the basis of ability to meet the LHN and provide for specialist accommodation.
4.4 In our previous representations to the Regulation 19 consultation, we disputed this conclusion and the ability of the plan to deliver specialist accommodation. A number of concerns were received from respondents to the Regulation 19 consultation as to the effectiveness of the Plan to meet the needs of older people, which should have prompted the Council to review the strategy in this regard as part of the Focussed Changes. The Site (reference 073) has consistently been promoted for specialist accommodation for older people, to meet a locally identified need within Mountnessing, as detailed in our previous representations, and represents a missed opportunity. Not only would this help to address a locally identified need, it would also enable delivery in the early years of the plan period; two concerns that were prevalent in the responses to the Regulation 19 consultation. This further supports the argument that reasonable alternatives to the Focussed Changes should have been considered.
4.5 Despite this, the SA then goes onto conclude that the assessment of the PSLP against the housing objective (significant positive effects) 'broadly holds true' for the Focussed Changes (uncertain negative effects). This is clearly not the case, and it is considered that this conclusion is both incorrect and misleading.
4.6 It is considered that the change from 'significant positive effects' (PSLP) to 'uncertain negative implications' (Focussed Changes) in achieving the 'Housing' objective amounts to a significant effect of the Focussed Changes. Therefore, in accordance with the PPG (as referenced above), consideration should have been given to reasonable alternatives, and the definitive conclusion that alternatives would not have led to notably different side effects is unjustified. As a minimum, the Council should have considered reasonable alternatives to ascertain whether there was a more suitable strategy which would enable the Plan to meet its housing needs, thus enabling the Plan to achieve a more positive and beneficial outcome in respect of the 'Housing' objective. We consider this to be fundamentally important to ensuring a sound Local Plan.
4.7 Given the decrease in housing within areas with the highest needs as raised in the SA, regard should have been had to allocating additional suitable sites to meet housing needs at a local level (which the plan failed to do prior to the Focussed Changes). This would help to address local housing requirements, including the provision of specialist accommodation, as well as providing a more substantial buffer over and above the increased LHN and help to minimise the risks associated with potential delays in delivery at DHGV; a concern that is highlighted in the SA.
4.8 Following from this, it would seem highly appropriate to consider settlements on key transport corridors such as Mountnessing, that contain sites that scored better than many of the allocated sites in the SA such as Site 073 (Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School), that could deliver housing to meet identified local needs within the first 5 years of the Plan, before choosing, what should be a last resort given the trajectory already discussed, increasing housing numbers at DHGV. Our representations to the previous Regulation 19 consultation contained evidence of local support via a social media consultation, which received 96 responses in total, all of whom were interested in a new build bungalow specifically for those aged 55 and over on the Site.5 Appendix B contains a summary of this. This demonstrates a locally supported site which is a suitable alternative to the Focussed Changes, yet one which has been overlooked.
4.9 The Plan has failed to consider alternative, suitable sites, to balance the reduction in housing numbers in the sites subject to the Focussed Changes when identifying suitable solutions to correct this.
5.0 Robustness of SLAA
5.1 We argued clearly within previous representations that the approach to assessing sites within the SA using the 'traffic light' scoring system was primitive, inconsistent and unjustified, which resulted in subjective and ill-informed conclusions. This is clearly shown in relation to the Site - land west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing, as shown below:
 the Site scored higher than many of the allocated sites, yet was not allocated due to 'potential highways access issues' despite previous representations confirming Essex County Council Highways have no objection to the access, and which agree with the proposed access strategy;
 the scoring system as to a Site's classification of agricultural land (criterion 17) the dataset for which, as confirmed in the SA, is described as 'of a poor resolution.' This resulted in some sites being scored 'red' or 'amber' when in fact they were brownfield or non-agricultural land. The Site was incorrectly assessed as 'amber' for this criterion, yet it has not been in agricultural use since the current owner's acquisition in 1995 (with evidence adduced as part of our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation to support this);
5.2 This further demonstrates inconsistencies and inaccuracies within the site assessment process, which we consider fails to demonstrate that the Plan has been positively prepared. However, despite pointing these out, the Focussed Changes do not include any rectification of these errors, and instead has taken a selective and non-transparent approach to amend existing allocations in response to objections received in the previous Regulation 19 consultation. We consider that this should have formed part of the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the Focussed Changes, which, as discussed above, was unjustifiably overlooked by the Council, in preference for amending the evidence base to suit the desired outcome. As a result, the Plan is not justified and cannot be considered sound.
6.0 The Unclear Approach to R18, R19, R25 and R26
6.1. The Council has decided to reduce the densities on allocations R18, R19, R25 and R26 (Focussed Changes 2-5), citing a considerable number of representations raising concerns as to the suitability of the sites for the proposed densities as the justification.
6.2. In redistributing the housing numbers from the above allocations to DHGV, the large number of objections received during the previous Regulation 19 consultation in respect of DHGV, including from statutory consultees, have been ignored. Instead, the Focussed Changes have gone against a number of comments, which highlight the unrealistic delivery timetable, and the need for sites which can deliver in the early years of the Plan.
6.3. There were also objections received in respect of other allocations within the Plan, as well as comments in respect of omission sites, such as our response to that consultation, which sought to clarify inaccuracies about the Site within the site assessment and show that earlier concerns regarding the access arrangements had been addressed.
6.4. The Addendum of Focussed Changes explains that the total loss of 70 homes across the four aforementioned sites will be off-set by altering another allocation to increase the number of new homes provided at Dunton Hill Garden Village (Focussed Change 1). However, the addendum does confirm that the overall number of new homes will not be increased, merely that there will be a faster rate of delivery at Dunton Hills Garden Village, resulting in more dwellings being provided before 2033 than previously projected (resulting in fewer post-2033).
6.5. We have a number of concerns with the proposed approach to addressing the shortfall that Focussed Changes 2-5 necessitate by simply altering Dunton Hills Garden Village to deliver at a greater rate than previously calculated, and at just a fast enough rate to account for the shortfall created by the need to reduce the proposed capacities for site R18, R19, R25, and R26. The lack of clarity in how both the reduction and the increase have been justified is unhelpful in being able to comment on the justification for the Focused Changes.
7.0 Cross-boundary and Statutory Consultee Objections
7.1. Basildon Borough Council have objected to the DHGV allocation in its response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, in which it raised concerns regarding the cross-boundary impacts of this site, questioning the soundness of the Plan in this respect. Similarly, Essex County Council also raised concerns in respect of the transport evidence base for DHGV. As part of the Focussed Changes, the Council have seemingly overlooked these comments, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, seeking instead to direct more housing numbers to this allocation within the Plan period, and failing to consider any reasonable alternatives.
7.2. As for the key concerns raised, it is concerning that the site assessments undertaken to date have failed to identify the numerous cited issues raised by respondents. Notwithstanding the inaccuracies in the assessment of our Site (land west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing) as mentioned above and in detail in our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, this casts further doubt on the robustness and the overall accuracy of the site assessment process which underpins the allocations within the Plan. This also substantiates our previous concerns that the site assessment process was inadequate, and therefore potentially undermines the remaining allocations within the Plan, as it is unclear as to whether any significant objection was raised in relation to those through the previous Regulation 19 consultation.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1. We consider that the Plan remains unsound as a result of the Focussed Changes. The higher confirmed LHN has not been incorporated within the Plan, nor the effects of this on whether the Plan should identify a suitable buffer to provide flexibility to adapt to rapid change. The Plan is therefore failing to meet the requirements of the NPPF and failing to meet the identified need for the Borough. The Focussed Changes do not demonstrate that the Plan will be effective in meeting housing needs, given it seeks to re-direct housing delivery from the short-term to the later years of the Plan, further decreasing its ability to meet its needs early in the Plan period. This is particularly concerning given the results of the Housing Delivery Test for the Borough (2019).
8.2. The trajectory as set out in the Focussed Changes remains overly optimistic, with the concerns as to the effects of a slippage in delivery at DHGV raised forming part of the reason for the SA conclusions that the Focussed Changes will have 'uncertain negative effects' on the 'Housing' objective. We strongly disagree with the SA's further conclusions that the assessment of the PSLP against the 'Housing' objective (significant positive effects) 'broadly holds true' for the Focussed Changes (uncertain negative effects).
8.3. The decision to discount the need for consideration of reasonable alternatives is inconsistent with national policy, and unjustified. This is apparent from the SA conclusions (discussed above), and we are highly concerned that this has reduced the ability of the Plan to meet the housing needs of the Borough going forward. The Council should have considered the merits of identifying additional, suitable sites to deliver in the short-medium term, including those which provide specialist accommodation to meet an identified local need, such as the land west of Crossby Close (site 073). As discussed above and shown in Appendix B, this represents a suitable site with local support for specialist accommodation that has been overlooked.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of M Scott Properties Ltd (Scott Properties) pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (the Council) Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) (Focussed Changes). They are submitted in addition to and should be read alongside those submitted in response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation held in February - March 2019.
1.2 Scott Properties have an interest in land to the west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing (the Site), which has been actively promoted as part of the Council's plan-making process, site reference 073 (AECOM (January 2019) SA Report). Previous representations have been made at various stages of the Local Plan, including the Call for Sites exercises and each consultation regarding the emerging Local Plan.
1.3 Scott Properties, in their capacity as a provider of specialist accommodation, are promoting the Site for specialist accommodation for those aged 55 and over, as well as those with, or supporting someone with a disability, in order to address an identified and unmet need locally and within the Borough.
1.4 Our earlier response to the Regulation 19 Consultation included evidence which demonstrated the existence of a local need for specialist accommodation within Mountnessing, and support for this type of accommodation through an online local needs consultation which received 92 positive responses.
1.5 These representations raise concerns as to:
 the impact of the higher Local Housing Need (LHN) figure;
 the lack of reasonable alternatives considered in making the Focussed Changes;
 the ability of the Focussed Changes to meet local housing needs, particularly older people; and
 the robustness of the SHLAA in light of the Focussed Changes.
2.0 Higher Local Housing Need (LHN)
2.1 These representations seek to focus on the proposed focussed changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (PSLP), set out in the consultation draft of the Focussed Changes. However, there are inevitable consequences resulting from the proposed amendments that draw together matters not specifically intended to be the focus of the addendum. We highlight these to ensure there is a holistic understanding of the effects of the changes proposed in the addendum and changes to national and local circumstances that should be considered prior to submission of the Plan.
2.2 Since the publication of the Pre-Submission Local Plan, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has been updated (in February 2019, during the previous Regulation 19 consultation) and confirms that the 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report Addendum - October 2019 (the SA Addendum) confirms at paragraph 2.9.3 that the LHN figure is now understood to equate to 454 dwellings per annum (dpa).
2.3 We expressed our concerns in our response to the previous Regulation 19 representations that there was insufficient flexibility within the PSLP's target figure of 456 dpa, which incorporates a 20% buffer on the housing requirement of 350 dpa as set out therein.2 Based on the actual housing need figure, as confirmed at 454 dpa within the SA Addendum, there now exists a buffer of just two dwellings per annum, which does not provide sufficient flexibility to ensure the Borough's housing needs are met. This is confirmed in paragraph 2.9.6 of the SA Addendum, which states that:
"the proposed supply figure of 456 dpa can no longer be said to put in place a significant 'buffer' over-and above the housing requirement."
2.4 In addition, it also highlights the risks of delays in delivery, as a result of increasing the housing supply to be provided at Dunton Hill Garden Village (DHGV) within the Plan period, confirming the importance of a buffer over-and-above the housing requirement for this reason. The Nathaniel Litchfield Study From Start to Finish (2016) confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5 years for a planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for schemes of 1,000 units and over. This not only confirms that it is unlikely that DHGV will deliver as early as 2022/23 as stated in the housing trajectory, but also points towards a necessity to ensure there is adequate provision within the Plan to meet housing requirements in the short-term. Within our earlier representations we stated that is was unrealistic that DHGV could deliver 100 dwellings as soon as 2022/23 as set out in the PSLP. Given that this was predicated (partly) on the adoption of the Local Plan in 2019, this timeframe is now clearly unrealistic and adoption by the end of 2020 remains challenging, with obvious implications for the proposed trajectory.
2.5 We consider that the Focussed Changes should have included an update to the LHN and the trajectory, without which the Plan can no longer be considered sound. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires plan-makers to positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change (our emphasis). It is considered that this is now not the case as a result of the updated LHN, given the Focussed Changes make no attempt to positively seek opportunities to meet development needs within the Borough. This is also set out in our comments regarding the lack of consideration of reasonable alternatives. This renders the plan inconsistent with national policy and unsound.
2.6 Paragraph 2.9.3 of the SA Addendum states that:
"It is fair to conclude that there is naturally a degree of increased risk associated with reliance on DHGV, as this is a large and complex site associated with delivery challenges, including in respect of infrastructure delivery; however, discussions between the Council and the site promoter have served to indicate that the 70 homes additionally assigned to the site through the Focussed Changes are deliverable within the plan period, and indeed can be delivered in a timely fashion such that the Local Plan housing delivery trajectory is unaffected."
2.7 The updated housing trajectory in the Focussed Changes shows the 70 homes reallocated to DHGV, as a result of the decreases from Focused Changes numbers.2-5, between years 15 and 17 (2030-2033), which does not represent delivery in a 'timely fashion', nor is the trajectory unaffected as a result. The Focussed Changes reduce the housing delivery within the earlier years of the Plan and thus the Plan's ability to meet its needs within those years. Our concern as to the robustness of the decision to adopted a stepped trajectory as raised in our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation remains. We consider that the effect of the Focussed Changes in further reducing the Plan's ability to meet its needs within the earlier years of the Plan; a concern that we raised in our previous Regulation 19 response.
2.8 We have concerns as to the accuracy of the updated housing trajectory, which shows an increase in the Total Housing Provision within years 12 and 13, but no corresponding increases within the expected delivery from the Plan Allocations. Furthermore, the additional housing allocated to DHGV in year 17 does not correspond with the Total Housing Provision. This results in an over-estimated supply within years 12 and 13, and an under-estimation in year 17. We would expect the Council to clarify these errors, as it is casts uncertainty as to the exact effect of the Focussed Changes on the housing trajectory.
2.9 The table attached at Appendix A shows the updated housing trajectory (assuming a Total Housing Provision that aligns with expected delivery of the allocations) against the updated LHN. This shows that by year 7 (2022/23) there will be a deficit of 1,151 dwellings, and this is based on optimistic delivery rates for sites without planning permission expected to deliver in year 5 and onwards, so likely represents the best-case scenario. It also assumes that DHGV will commence delivery as early as year 7 (2022/23), which, as stated above and within our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, is an unrealistic expectation.
2.10 As a result of the increased LHN, the Total Housing Provision within the Plan provides a buffer of only 69 dwellings over the Plan's total housing requirement, which equates to just 0.9% of the requirement across the Plan period. The PSLP sought to provide a buffer of 20% against the housing requirement and we would highlight that the Chelmsford Local Plan, which has recently been examined, proposes a 20% buffer and this has been found to be suitable by the Inspector. The situation for the PSLP is that, again, the Plan demonstrates a lack of flexibility contrary to best practice, contrary to the rationale of the PSLP itself and contrary to Paragraph 11(a) of the NPPF. The Plan is therefore not positively prepared, nor will it be effective in meeting its needs across the Plan period.
3.0 Ability to Meet Local Housing Need (LHN)
3.1 Our representations to the previous Regulation 19 consultation highlighted the ageing population within the Borough, as recognised within paragraph 6.6 of the PSLP, and our concerns as to the lack of provision for specialist accommodation within the PSLP to meet present and future needs.
3.2 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan SA Report October 2019 (the SA) states at paragraph 9.5 that:
"There is also a need to address the health inequalities that exist within the population, and which are set to worsen, including because of the ageing population."
3.3 The Focussed Changes reduce the Plan's ability to meet local needs, particularly those of an ageing population, firstly, by reducing housing numbers in areas where housing needs are likely to be the highest, as quoted within the SA Addendum.3
3.4 Policies R25 and R26 require a provision for a minimum of 25% of the dwellings provided to be made available to those with a local connection, or to those aged 50 and over. The reduction in the number of dwellings not only reduces the potential availability of housing suitable for older people, but also raises concerns as to viability, as recognised within the SA Addendum. It states at paragraph 2.9.2 that:
"A reduced number of homes will have implications for scheme viability, and it is noted that these sites are subject to a policy requirement in respect of reserving a minimum of 25% of the proposed dwellings to be reserved for people with a strong and demonstrable local connection or those over 50 years of age; however, it is not possible to conclude any significant risk of the schemes becoming undeliverable."
3.5 Although this concludes that the schemes themselves may not become undeliverable, there is a real possibility that viability will affect the provision for these 25% homes for local people and those aged 50 and over coming forward through these allocations.
3.6 In addition, the Brentwood Local Development Plan Health Impact Assessment Version 3 October 2019 (HIA) notes that the reduction in dwellings on allocation R19 means that no wheelchair accessible dwellings will be required on site, taking it below the 60 dwelling threshold as set out in Policy HP01 of the PSLP.
3.7 Although the reduction in housing numbers on R18-19 and R25-26 will be redistributed to DHGV as part of the Focussed Changes, we would reiterate our concerns in relation to the provision and delivery of specialist accommodation at DHGV. Firstly, as stated above, the redistributed housing is not expected to be delivered at DHGV until year 12, reducing the ability of the Plan to address needs earlier in the Plan period.
3.8 Secondly, the provision for specialist accommodation at DHGV is to be delivered in accordance with Policy HP04. Paragraph 9.9.4 of the SA states that the provision of specialist accommodation at DHGV is not clear. Our response to the Regulation 19 consultation also raised concerns as to the lack of clarity regarding the definition of specialist accommodation within the supporting text of this Policy. The supporting text fails to give an accurate representation as to which type of specialist accommodation the Plan is seeking to deliver and for which group(s).
3.9 In light of this, it is considered that the Focussed Changes negatively affect the delivery of specialist accommodation for older people within the Plan period. We consider that the identification of additional suitable sites to meet needs within the short to medium term of the Plan period would enable the Plan to meet its housing needs specifically for older people. In the absence of this, we consider the Plan to be unsound and in direct conflict with the 'Housing for older and disabled people' 26 June 2019 addition to the NPPG.
4.0 Lack of Reasonable Alternatives Considered
4.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan SA Report Addendum (October 2019) (the SA Addendum) states at paragraph 1.2.5 that as part of preparing the Focussed Changes and updating the SA, there was not considered to be a need to give further formal consideration to reasonable alternatives, as it was considered unlikely that alternatives would lead to notably different side effects. This was in reliance of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) paragraph 009 Reference ID: 11-009-20140306, which states:
"The sustainability appraisal should only focus on what is needed to assess the likely significant effects of the plan."
4.2 We consider that the conclusions as to the effects of the Focused Changes, particularly in respect of the 'Housing' objective as stated within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report October 2019 (SA) clearly demonstrate that reasonable alternatives should have been considered.
4.3 The SA states that there will be 'uncertain negative implications' for the achievement of the 'Housing' objectives.4 This is on the basis that the housing has been reduced in areas where needs are likely to be highest, and, has been moved to Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), potentially increasing the risk of not delivering the housing requirement. It also makes reference to the higher LHN figure. In comparison, the PSLP, prior to the Focussed Changes, was assessed as likely to have 'significant positive effects' on the basis of ability to meet the LHN and provide for specialist accommodation.
4.4 In our previous representations to the Regulation 19 consultation, we disputed this conclusion and the ability of the plan to deliver specialist accommodation. A number of concerns were received from respondents to the Regulation 19 consultation as to the effectiveness of the Plan to meet the needs of older people, which should have prompted the Council to review the strategy in this regard as part of the Focussed Changes. The Site (reference 073) has consistently been promoted for specialist accommodation for older people, to meet a locally identified need within Mountnessing, as detailed in our previous representations, and represents a missed opportunity. Not only would this help to address a locally identified need, it would also enable delivery in the early years of the plan period; two concerns that were prevalent in the responses to the Regulation 19 consultation. This further supports the argument that reasonable alternatives to the Focussed Changes should have been considered.
4.5 Despite this, the SA then goes onto conclude that the assessment of the PSLP against the housing objective (significant positive effects) 'broadly holds true' for the Focussed Changes (uncertain negative effects). This is clearly not the case, and it is considered that this conclusion is both incorrect and misleading.
4.6 It is considered that the change from 'significant positive effects' (PSLP) to 'uncertain negative implications' (Focussed Changes) in achieving the 'Housing' objective amounts to a significant effect of the Focussed Changes. Therefore, in accordance with the PPG (as referenced above), consideration should have been given to reasonable alternatives, and the definitive conclusion that alternatives would not have led to notably different side effects is unjustified. As a minimum, the Council should have considered reasonable alternatives to ascertain whether there was a more suitable strategy which would enable the Plan to meet its housing needs, thus enabling the Plan to achieve a more positive and beneficial outcome in respect of the 'Housing' objective. We consider this to be fundamentally important to ensuring a sound Local Plan.
4.7 Given the decrease in housing within areas with the highest needs as raised in the SA, regard should have been had to allocating additional suitable sites to meet housing needs at a local level (which the plan failed to do prior to the Focussed Changes). This would help to address local housing requirements, including the provision of specialist accommodation, as well as providing a more substantial buffer over and above the increased LHN and help to minimise the risks associated with potential delays in delivery at DHGV; a concern that is highlighted in the SA.
4.8 Following from this, it would seem highly appropriate to consider settlements on key transport corridors such as Mountnessing, that contain sites that scored better than many of the allocated sites in the SA such as Site 073 (Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School), that could deliver housing to meet identified local needs within the first 5 years of the Plan, before choosing, what should be a last resort given the trajectory already discussed, increasing housing numbers at DHGV. Our representations to the previous Regulation 19 consultation contained evidence of local support via a social media consultation, which received 96 responses in total, all of whom were interested in a new build bungalow specifically for those aged 55 and over on the Site.5 Appendix B contains a summary of this. This demonstrates a locally supported site which is a suitable alternative to the Focussed Changes, yet one which has been overlooked.
4.9 The Plan has failed to consider alternative, suitable sites, to balance the reduction in housing numbers in the sites subject to the Focussed Changes when identifying suitable solutions to correct this.
5.0 Robustness of SLAA
5.1 We argued clearly within previous representations that the approach to assessing sites within the SA using the 'traffic light' scoring system was primitive, inconsistent and unjustified, which resulted in subjective and ill-informed conclusions. This is clearly shown in relation to the Site - land west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing, as shown below:
 the Site scored higher than many of the allocated sites, yet was not allocated due to 'potential highways access issues' despite previous representations confirming Essex County Council Highways have no objection to the access, and which agree with the proposed access strategy;
 the scoring system as to a Site's classification of agricultural land (criterion 17) the dataset for which, as confirmed in the SA, is described as 'of a poor resolution.' This resulted in some sites being scored 'red' or 'amber' when in fact they were brownfield or non-agricultural land. The Site was incorrectly assessed as 'amber' for this criterion, yet it has not been in agricultural use since the current owner's acquisition in 1995 (with evidence adduced as part of our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation to support this);
5.2 This further demonstrates inconsistencies and inaccuracies within the site assessment process, which we consider fails to demonstrate that the Plan has been positively prepared. However, despite pointing these out, the Focussed Changes do not include any rectification of these errors, and instead has taken a selective and non-transparent approach to amend existing allocations in response to objections received in the previous Regulation 19 consultation. We consider that this should have formed part of the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the Focussed Changes, which, as discussed above, was unjustifiably overlooked by the Council, in preference for amending the evidence base to suit the desired outcome. As a result, the Plan is not justified and cannot be considered sound.
6.0 The Unclear Approach to R18, R19, R25 and R26
6.1. The Council has decided to reduce the densities on allocations R18, R19, R25 and R26 (Focussed Changes 2-5), citing a considerable number of representations raising concerns as to the suitability of the sites for the proposed densities as the justification.
6.2. In redistributing the housing numbers from the above allocations to DHGV, the large number of objections received during the previous Regulation 19 consultation in respect of DHGV, including from statutory consultees, have been ignored. Instead, the Focussed Changes have gone against a number of comments, which highlight the unrealistic delivery timetable, and the need for sites which can deliver in the early years of the Plan.
6.3. There were also objections received in respect of other allocations within the Plan, as well as comments in respect of omission sites, such as our response to that consultation, which sought to clarify inaccuracies about the Site within the site assessment and show that earlier concerns regarding the access arrangements had been addressed.
6.4. The Addendum of Focussed Changes explains that the total loss of 70 homes across the four aforementioned sites will be off-set by altering another allocation to increase the number of new homes provided at Dunton Hill Garden Village (Focussed Change 1). However, the addendum does confirm that the overall number of new homes will not be increased, merely that there will be a faster rate of delivery at Dunton Hills Garden Village, resulting in more dwellings being provided before 2033 than previously projected (resulting in fewer post-2033).
6.5. We have a number of concerns with the proposed approach to addressing the shortfall that Focussed Changes 2-5 necessitate by simply altering Dunton Hills Garden Village to deliver at a greater rate than previously calculated, and at just a fast enough rate to account for the shortfall created by the need to reduce the proposed capacities for site R18, R19, R25, and R26. The lack of clarity in how both the reduction and the increase have been justified is unhelpful in being able to comment on the justification for the Focused Changes.
7.0 Cross-boundary and Statutory Consultee Objections
7.1. Basildon Borough Council have objected to the DHGV allocation in its response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, in which it raised concerns regarding the cross-boundary impacts of this site, questioning the soundness of the Plan in this respect. Similarly, Essex County Council also raised concerns in respect of the transport evidence base for DHGV. As part of the Focussed Changes, the Council have seemingly overlooked these comments, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, seeking instead to direct more housing numbers to this allocation within the Plan period, and failing to consider any reasonable alternatives.
7.2. As for the key concerns raised, it is concerning that the site assessments undertaken to date have failed to identify the numerous cited issues raised by respondents. Notwithstanding the inaccuracies in the assessment of our Site (land west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing) as mentioned above and in detail in our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, this casts further doubt on the robustness and the overall accuracy of the site assessment process which underpins the allocations within the Plan. This also substantiates our previous concerns that the site assessment process was inadequate, and therefore potentially undermines the remaining allocations within the Plan, as it is unclear as to whether any significant objection was raised in relation to those through the previous Regulation 19 consultation.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1. We consider that the Plan remains unsound as a result of the Focussed Changes. The higher confirmed LHN has not been incorporated within the Plan, nor the effects of this on whether the Plan should identify a suitable buffer to provide flexibility to adapt to rapid change. The Plan is therefore failing to meet the requirements of the NPPF and failing to meet the identified need for the Borough. The Focussed Changes do not demonstrate that the Plan will be effective in meeting housing needs, given it seeks to re-direct housing delivery from the short-term to the later years of the Plan, further decreasing its ability to meet its needs early in the Plan period. This is particularly concerning given the results of the Housing Delivery Test for the Borough (2019).
8.2. The trajectory as set out in the Focussed Changes remains overly optimistic, with the concerns as to the effects of a slippage in delivery at DHGV raised forming part of the reason for the SA conclusions that the Focussed Changes will have 'uncertain negative effects' on the 'Housing' objective. We strongly disagree with the SA's further conclusions that the assessment of the PSLP against the 'Housing' objective (significant positive effects) 'broadly holds true' for the Focussed Changes (uncertain negative effects).
8.3. The decision to discount the need for consideration of reasonable alternatives is inconsistent with national policy, and unjustified. This is apparent from the SA conclusions (discussed above), and we are highly concerned that this has reduced the ability of the Plan to meet the housing needs of the Borough going forward. The Council should have considered the merits of identifying additional, suitable sites to deliver in the short-medium term, including those which provide specialist accommodation to meet an identified local need, such as the land west of Crossby Close (site 073). As discussed above and shown in Appendix B, this represents a suitable site with local support for specialist accommodation that has been overlooked.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of M Scott Properties Ltd (Scott Properties) pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (the Council) Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) (Focussed Changes). They are submitted in addition to and should be read alongside those submitted in response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation held in February - March 2019.
1.2 Scott Properties have an interest in land to the west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing (the Site), which has been actively promoted as part of the Council's plan-making process, site reference 073 (AECOM (January 2019) SA Report). Previous representations have been made at various stages of the Local Plan, including the Call for Sites exercises and each consultation regarding the emerging Local Plan.
1.3 Scott Properties, in their capacity as a provider of specialist accommodation, are promoting the Site for specialist accommodation for those aged 55 and over, as well as those with, or supporting someone with a disability, in order to address an identified and unmet need locally and within the Borough.
1.4 Our earlier response to the Regulation 19 Consultation included evidence which demonstrated the existence of a local need for specialist accommodation within Mountnessing, and support for this type of accommodation through an online local needs consultation which received 92 positive responses.
1.5 These representations raise concerns as to:
 the impact of the higher Local Housing Need (LHN) figure;
 the lack of reasonable alternatives considered in making the Focussed Changes;
 the ability of the Focussed Changes to meet local housing needs, particularly older people; and
 the robustness of the SHLAA in light of the Focussed Changes.
2.0 Higher Local Housing Need (LHN)
2.1 These representations seek to focus on the proposed focussed changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (PSLP), set out in the consultation draft of the Focussed Changes. However, there are inevitable consequences resulting from the proposed amendments that draw together matters not specifically intended to be the focus of the addendum. We highlight these to ensure there is a holistic understanding of the effects of the changes proposed in the addendum and changes to national and local circumstances that should be considered prior to submission of the Plan.
2.2 Since the publication of the Pre-Submission Local Plan, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has been updated (in February 2019, during the previous Regulation 19 consultation) and confirms that the 2014-based subnational household projections should be used to calculate the housing requirement using the Standard Method.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report Addendum - October 2019 (the SA Addendum) confirms at paragraph 2.9.3 that the LHN figure is now understood to equate to 454 dwellings per annum (dpa).
2.3 We expressed our concerns in our response to the previous Regulation 19 representations that there was insufficient flexibility within the PSLP's target figure of 456 dpa, which incorporates a 20% buffer on the housing requirement of 350 dpa as set out therein.2 Based on the actual housing need figure, as confirmed at 454 dpa within the SA Addendum, there now exists a buffer of just two dwellings per annum, which does not provide sufficient flexibility to ensure the Borough's housing needs are met. This is confirmed in paragraph 2.9.6 of the SA Addendum, which states that:
"the proposed supply figure of 456 dpa can no longer be said to put in place a significant 'buffer' over-and above the housing requirement."
2.4 In addition, it also highlights the risks of delays in delivery, as a result of increasing the housing supply to be provided at Dunton Hill Garden Village (DHGV) within the Plan period, confirming the importance of a buffer over-and-above the housing requirement for this reason. The Nathaniel Litchfield Study From Start to Finish (2016) confirms that the planning process takes on average 2.5 years for a planning application determination period for schemes of up to 500 units, but that this can double for schemes of 1,000 units and over. This not only confirms that it is unlikely that DHGV will deliver as early as 2022/23 as stated in the housing trajectory, but also points towards a necessity to ensure there is adequate provision within the Plan to meet housing requirements in the short-term. Within our earlier representations we stated that is was unrealistic that DHGV could deliver 100 dwellings as soon as 2022/23 as set out in the PSLP. Given that this was predicated (partly) on the adoption of the Local Plan in 2019, this timeframe is now clearly unrealistic and adoption by the end of 2020 remains challenging, with obvious implications for the proposed trajectory.
2.5 We consider that the Focussed Changes should have included an update to the LHN and the trajectory, without which the Plan can no longer be considered sound. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires plan-makers to positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change (our emphasis). It is considered that this is now not the case as a result of the updated LHN, given the Focussed Changes make no attempt to positively seek opportunities to meet development needs within the Borough. This is also set out in our comments regarding the lack of consideration of reasonable alternatives. This renders the plan inconsistent with national policy and unsound.
2.6 Paragraph 2.9.3 of the SA Addendum states that:
"It is fair to conclude that there is naturally a degree of increased risk associated with reliance on DHGV, as this is a large and complex site associated with delivery challenges, including in respect of infrastructure delivery; however, discussions between the Council and the site promoter have served to indicate that the 70 homes additionally assigned to the site through the Focussed Changes are deliverable within the plan period, and indeed can be delivered in a timely fashion such that the Local Plan housing delivery trajectory is unaffected."
2.7 The updated housing trajectory in the Focussed Changes shows the 70 homes reallocated to DHGV, as a result of the decreases from Focused Changes numbers.2-5, between years 15 and 17 (2030-2033), which does not represent delivery in a 'timely fashion', nor is the trajectory unaffected as a result. The Focussed Changes reduce the housing delivery within the earlier years of the Plan and thus the Plan's ability to meet its needs within those years. Our concern as to the robustness of the decision to adopted a stepped trajectory as raised in our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation remains. We consider that the effect of the Focussed Changes in further reducing the Plan's ability to meet its needs within the earlier years of the Plan; a concern that we raised in our previous Regulation 19 response.
2.8 We have concerns as to the accuracy of the updated housing trajectory, which shows an increase in the Total Housing Provision within years 12 and 13, but no corresponding increases within the expected delivery from the Plan Allocations. Furthermore, the additional housing allocated to DHGV in year 17 does not correspond with the Total Housing Provision. This results in an over-estimated supply within years 12 and 13, and an under-estimation in year 17. We would expect the Council to clarify these errors, as it is casts uncertainty as to the exact effect of the Focussed Changes on the housing trajectory.
2.9 The table attached at Appendix A shows the updated housing trajectory (assuming a Total Housing Provision that aligns with expected delivery of the allocations) against the updated LHN. This shows that by year 7 (2022/23) there will be a deficit of 1,151 dwellings, and this is based on optimistic delivery rates for sites without planning permission expected to deliver in year 5 and onwards, so likely represents the best-case scenario. It also assumes that DHGV will commence delivery as early as year 7 (2022/23), which, as stated above and within our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, is an unrealistic expectation.
2.10 As a result of the increased LHN, the Total Housing Provision within the Plan provides a buffer of only 69 dwellings over the Plan's total housing requirement, which equates to just 0.9% of the requirement across the Plan period. The PSLP sought to provide a buffer of 20% against the housing requirement and we would highlight that the Chelmsford Local Plan, which has recently been examined, proposes a 20% buffer and this has been found to be suitable by the Inspector. The situation for the PSLP is that, again, the Plan demonstrates a lack of flexibility contrary to best practice, contrary to the rationale of the PSLP itself and contrary to Paragraph 11(a) of the NPPF. The Plan is therefore not positively prepared, nor will it be effective in meeting its needs across the Plan period.
3.0 Ability to Meet Local Housing Need (LHN)
3.1 Our representations to the previous Regulation 19 consultation highlighted the ageing population within the Borough, as recognised within paragraph 6.6 of the PSLP, and our concerns as to the lack of provision for specialist accommodation within the PSLP to meet present and future needs.
3.2 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan SA Report October 2019 (the SA) states at paragraph 9.5 that:
"There is also a need to address the health inequalities that exist within the population, and which are set to worsen, including because of the ageing population."
3.3 The Focussed Changes reduce the Plan's ability to meet local needs, particularly those of an ageing population, firstly, by reducing housing numbers in areas where housing needs are likely to be the highest, as quoted within the SA Addendum.3
3.4 Policies R25 and R26 require a provision for a minimum of 25% of the dwellings provided to be made available to those with a local connection, or to those aged 50 and over. The reduction in the number of dwellings not only reduces the potential availability of housing suitable for older people, but also raises concerns as to viability, as recognised within the SA Addendum. It states at paragraph 2.9.2 that:
"A reduced number of homes will have implications for scheme viability, and it is noted that these sites are subject to a policy requirement in respect of reserving a minimum of 25% of the proposed dwellings to be reserved for people with a strong and demonstrable local connection or those over 50 years of age; however, it is not possible to conclude any significant risk of the schemes becoming undeliverable."
3.5 Although this concludes that the schemes themselves may not become undeliverable, there is a real possibility that viability will affect the provision for these 25% homes for local people and those aged 50 and over coming forward through these allocations.
3.6 In addition, the Brentwood Local Development Plan Health Impact Assessment Version 3 October 2019 (HIA) notes that the reduction in dwellings on allocation R19 means that no wheelchair accessible dwellings will be required on site, taking it below the 60 dwelling threshold as set out in Policy HP01 of the PSLP.
3.7 Although the reduction in housing numbers on R18-19 and R25-26 will be redistributed to DHGV as part of the Focussed Changes, we would reiterate our concerns in relation to the provision and delivery of specialist accommodation at DHGV. Firstly, as stated above, the redistributed housing is not expected to be delivered at DHGV until year 12, reducing the ability of the Plan to address needs earlier in the Plan period.
3.8 Secondly, the provision for specialist accommodation at DHGV is to be delivered in accordance with Policy HP04. Paragraph 9.9.4 of the SA states that the provision of specialist accommodation at DHGV is not clear. Our response to the Regulation 19 consultation also raised concerns as to the lack of clarity regarding the definition of specialist accommodation within the supporting text of this Policy. The supporting text fails to give an accurate representation as to which type of specialist accommodation the Plan is seeking to deliver and for which group(s).
3.9 In light of this, it is considered that the Focussed Changes negatively affect the delivery of specialist accommodation for older people within the Plan period. We consider that the identification of additional suitable sites to meet needs within the short to medium term of the Plan period would enable the Plan to meet its housing needs specifically for older people. In the absence of this, we consider the Plan to be unsound and in direct conflict with the 'Housing for older and disabled people' 26 June 2019 addition to the NPPG.
4.0 Lack of Reasonable Alternatives Considered
4.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan SA Report Addendum (October 2019) (the SA Addendum) states at paragraph 1.2.5 that as part of preparing the Focussed Changes and updating the SA, there was not considered to be a need to give further formal consideration to reasonable alternatives, as it was considered unlikely that alternatives would lead to notably different side effects. This was in reliance of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) paragraph 009 Reference ID: 11-009-20140306, which states:
"The sustainability appraisal should only focus on what is needed to assess the likely significant effects of the plan."
4.2 We consider that the conclusions as to the effects of the Focused Changes, particularly in respect of the 'Housing' objective as stated within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report October 2019 (SA) clearly demonstrate that reasonable alternatives should have been considered.
4.3 The SA states that there will be 'uncertain negative implications' for the achievement of the 'Housing' objectives.4 This is on the basis that the housing has been reduced in areas where needs are likely to be highest, and, has been moved to Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), potentially increasing the risk of not delivering the housing requirement. It also makes reference to the higher LHN figure. In comparison, the PSLP, prior to the Focussed Changes, was assessed as likely to have 'significant positive effects' on the basis of ability to meet the LHN and provide for specialist accommodation.
4.4 In our previous representations to the Regulation 19 consultation, we disputed this conclusion and the ability of the plan to deliver specialist accommodation. A number of concerns were received from respondents to the Regulation 19 consultation as to the effectiveness of the Plan to meet the needs of older people, which should have prompted the Council to review the strategy in this regard as part of the Focussed Changes. The Site (reference 073) has consistently been promoted for specialist accommodation for older people, to meet a locally identified need within Mountnessing, as detailed in our previous representations, and represents a missed opportunity. Not only would this help to address a locally identified need, it would also enable delivery in the early years of the plan period; two concerns that were prevalent in the responses to the Regulation 19 consultation. This further supports the argument that reasonable alternatives to the Focussed Changes should have been considered.
4.5 Despite this, the SA then goes onto conclude that the assessment of the PSLP against the housing objective (significant positive effects) 'broadly holds true' for the Focussed Changes (uncertain negative effects). This is clearly not the case, and it is considered that this conclusion is both incorrect and misleading.
4.6 It is considered that the change from 'significant positive effects' (PSLP) to 'uncertain negative implications' (Focussed Changes) in achieving the 'Housing' objective amounts to a significant effect of the Focussed Changes. Therefore, in accordance with the PPG (as referenced above), consideration should have been given to reasonable alternatives, and the definitive conclusion that alternatives would not have led to notably different side effects is unjustified. As a minimum, the Council should have considered reasonable alternatives to ascertain whether there was a more suitable strategy which would enable the Plan to meet its housing needs, thus enabling the Plan to achieve a more positive and beneficial outcome in respect of the 'Housing' objective. We consider this to be fundamentally important to ensuring a sound Local Plan.
4.7 Given the decrease in housing within areas with the highest needs as raised in the SA, regard should have been had to allocating additional suitable sites to meet housing needs at a local level (which the plan failed to do prior to the Focussed Changes). This would help to address local housing requirements, including the provision of specialist accommodation, as well as providing a more substantial buffer over and above the increased LHN and help to minimise the risks associated with potential delays in delivery at DHGV; a concern that is highlighted in the SA.
4.8 Following from this, it would seem highly appropriate to consider settlements on key transport corridors such as Mountnessing, that contain sites that scored better than many of the allocated sites in the SA such as Site 073 (Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School), that could deliver housing to meet identified local needs within the first 5 years of the Plan, before choosing, what should be a last resort given the trajectory already discussed, increasing housing numbers at DHGV. Our representations to the previous Regulation 19 consultation contained evidence of local support via a social media consultation, which received 96 responses in total, all of whom were interested in a new build bungalow specifically for those aged 55 and over on the Site.5 Appendix B contains a summary of this. This demonstrates a locally supported site which is a suitable alternative to the Focussed Changes, yet one which has been overlooked.
4.9 The Plan has failed to consider alternative, suitable sites, to balance the reduction in housing numbers in the sites subject to the Focussed Changes when identifying suitable solutions to correct this.
5.0 Robustness of SLAA
5.1 We argued clearly within previous representations that the approach to assessing sites within the SA using the 'traffic light' scoring system was primitive, inconsistent and unjustified, which resulted in subjective and ill-informed conclusions. This is clearly shown in relation to the Site - land west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing, as shown below:
 the Site scored higher than many of the allocated sites, yet was not allocated due to 'potential highways access issues' despite previous representations confirming Essex County Council Highways have no objection to the access, and which agree with the proposed access strategy;
 the scoring system as to a Site's classification of agricultural land (criterion 17) the dataset for which, as confirmed in the SA, is described as 'of a poor resolution.' This resulted in some sites being scored 'red' or 'amber' when in fact they were brownfield or non-agricultural land. The Site was incorrectly assessed as 'amber' for this criterion, yet it has not been in agricultural use since the current owner's acquisition in 1995 (with evidence adduced as part of our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation to support this);
5.2 This further demonstrates inconsistencies and inaccuracies within the site assessment process, which we consider fails to demonstrate that the Plan has been positively prepared. However, despite pointing these out, the Focussed Changes do not include any rectification of these errors, and instead has taken a selective and non-transparent approach to amend existing allocations in response to objections received in the previous Regulation 19 consultation. We consider that this should have formed part of the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the Focussed Changes, which, as discussed above, was unjustifiably overlooked by the Council, in preference for amending the evidence base to suit the desired outcome. As a result, the Plan is not justified and cannot be considered sound.
6.0 The Unclear Approach to R18, R19, R25 and R26
6.1. The Council has decided to reduce the densities on allocations R18, R19, R25 and R26 (Focussed Changes 2-5), citing a considerable number of representations raising concerns as to the suitability of the sites for the proposed densities as the justification.
6.2. In redistributing the housing numbers from the above allocations to DHGV, the large number of objections received during the previous Regulation 19 consultation in respect of DHGV, including from statutory consultees, have been ignored. Instead, the Focussed Changes have gone against a number of comments, which highlight the unrealistic delivery timetable, and the need for sites which can deliver in the early years of the Plan.
6.3. There were also objections received in respect of other allocations within the Plan, as well as comments in respect of omission sites, such as our response to that consultation, which sought to clarify inaccuracies about the Site within the site assessment and show that earlier concerns regarding the access arrangements had been addressed.
6.4. The Addendum of Focussed Changes explains that the total loss of 70 homes across the four aforementioned sites will be off-set by altering another allocation to increase the number of new homes provided at Dunton Hill Garden Village (Focussed Change 1). However, the addendum does confirm that the overall number of new homes will not be increased, merely that there will be a faster rate of delivery at Dunton Hills Garden Village, resulting in more dwellings being provided before 2033 than previously projected (resulting in fewer post-2033).
6.5. We have a number of concerns with the proposed approach to addressing the shortfall that Focussed Changes 2-5 necessitate by simply altering Dunton Hills Garden Village to deliver at a greater rate than previously calculated, and at just a fast enough rate to account for the shortfall created by the need to reduce the proposed capacities for site R18, R19, R25, and R26. The lack of clarity in how both the reduction and the increase have been justified is unhelpful in being able to comment on the justification for the Focused Changes.
7.0 Cross-boundary and Statutory Consultee Objections
7.1. Basildon Borough Council have objected to the DHGV allocation in its response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, in which it raised concerns regarding the cross-boundary impacts of this site, questioning the soundness of the Plan in this respect. Similarly, Essex County Council also raised concerns in respect of the transport evidence base for DHGV. As part of the Focussed Changes, the Council have seemingly overlooked these comments, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, seeking instead to direct more housing numbers to this allocation within the Plan period, and failing to consider any reasonable alternatives.
7.2. As for the key concerns raised, it is concerning that the site assessments undertaken to date have failed to identify the numerous cited issues raised by respondents. Notwithstanding the inaccuracies in the assessment of our Site (land west of Crossby Close, Mountnessing) as mentioned above and in detail in our response to the previous Regulation 19 consultation, this casts further doubt on the robustness and the overall accuracy of the site assessment process which underpins the allocations within the Plan. This also substantiates our previous concerns that the site assessment process was inadequate, and therefore potentially undermines the remaining allocations within the Plan, as it is unclear as to whether any significant objection was raised in relation to those through the previous Regulation 19 consultation.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1. We consider that the Plan remains unsound as a result of the Focussed Changes. The higher confirmed LHN has not been incorporated within the Plan, nor the effects of this on whether the Plan should identify a suitable buffer to provide flexibility to adapt to rapid change. The Plan is therefore failing to meet the requirements of the NPPF and failing to meet the identified need for the Borough. The Focussed Changes do not demonstrate that the Plan will be effective in meeting housing needs, given it seeks to re-direct housing delivery from the short-term to the later years of the Plan, further decreasing its ability to meet its needs early in the Plan period. This is particularly concerning given the results of the Housing Delivery Test for the Borough (2019).
8.2. The trajectory as set out in the Focussed Changes remains overly optimistic, with the concerns as to the effects of a slippage in delivery at DHGV raised forming part of the reason for the SA conclusions that the Focussed Changes will have 'uncertain negative effects' on the 'Housing' objective. We strongly disagree with the SA's further conclusions that the assessment of the PSLP against the 'Housing' objective (significant positive effects) 'broadly holds true' for the Focussed Changes (uncertain negative effects).
8.3. The decision to discount the need for consideration of reasonable alternatives is inconsistent with national policy, and unjustified. This is apparent from the SA conclusions (discussed above), and we are highly concerned that this has reduced the ability of the Plan to meet the housing needs of the Borough going forward. The Council should have considered the merits of identifying additional, suitable sites to deliver in the short-medium term, including those which provide specialist accommodation to meet an identified local need, such as the land west of Crossby Close (site 073). As discussed above and shown in Appendix B, this represents a suitable site with local support for specialist accommodation that has been overlooked.