Support

Representation ID: 14965

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

General support given. The development or redevelopment of land in existing urban areas should always be prioritised over development of brownfield or greenfield sites in the Green Belt Support is given to the hierarchical approach taken in determining where sustainable growth will be best accommodated, and in particular the main focus being the Urban Area of Brentwood, including Shenfield, where new development will be best served by public transport, retail, employment areas, health and leisure facilities and schools. The Brentwood Urban Area offers the most scope to deliver development in accordance with sustainable development principles.

Comment

Representation ID: 14966

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

The Objectively Assessed Housing Need figure of 7,240 new residential dwellings to be built over the Plan period, at a rate of 362 dwellings per year, is supported as a minimum. Whilst there is also support for the distribution of housing, the deliverability of the Strategic Site within the Plan Period is questioned - see also response to Policy 7.1.

Comment

Representation ID: 14969

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

The deliverability of the Strategic Site within the Plan Period is questioned. Included within this is Windfall Sites which are identified within Policy 5.2 as contributing 14%. The text (page 47) makes it clear that windfall makes an allowance for small scale development.
Given the dwindling supply of brownfield land within the urban area and the inherent unpredictability of the availability of windfall sites, it is not necessarily appropriate to continue to predict the availability at historic rates of provision. Against the backdrop of a relatively high proportion of housing supply overall, greater emphasis should be placed within the Local Plan on the importance of all windfall sites, regardless of their size, acknowledging the cumulative effect that even the smallest of sites providing 1 or 2 units, will have on housing supply and achieving the growth set out within Policy 5.2.

Comment

Representation ID: 14974

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

The deliverability of the Strategic Site within the Plan Period is questioned. Included within this is Windfall Sites which are identified within Policy 5.2 as contributing 14%. The text (page 47) makes it clear that windfall makes an allowance for small scale development.
Given the dwindling supply of brownfield land within the urban area and the inherent unpredictability of the availability of windfall sites, it is not necessarily appropriate to continue to predict the availability at historic rates of provision. Against the backdrop of a relatively high proportion of housing supply overall, greater emphasis should be placed within the Local Plan on the importance of all windfall sites, regardless of their size, acknowledging the cumulative effect that even the smallest of sites providing 1 or 2 units, will have on housing supply and achieving the growth set out within Policy 5.2.

Comment

Representation ID: 14976

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Question whether such development can realistically be delivered within the plan period. Cooperation with Basildon DC seems to have fallen away, with Basildon DC promoting, under Policy H10a & 10b of their Draft Local Plan part of that previously identified land.
The approach taken by Basildon raises the question of whether the much greater area and housing numbers promoted by Brentwood Council under Policy 7.1 can be delivered within the plan period.
The overall approach would represent piecemeal development. That part promoted by Brentwood Council would be largely isolated from the proposed West Basildon Urban Extension, and it is not clear whether there is any cooperation between the Boroughs in promoting these different parcels of land or whether there is any likelihood of a new train station being viable in this location. This throws considerable doubt on whether such new development is deliverable, and in a way that is self-sustaining and meets the principles of Garden Villages. Thus serving to undermine the Housing Growth under Policy 5.2, and places even greater emphasis on delivering other identified sites within the urban area and any other suitable land currently not identified (windfall sites) in the urban areas, of whatever size, which can be delivered and make a contribution to housing supply.

Object

Representation ID: 14981

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Objectives of Policy 7.2 are generally supported, the element requiring developments of more than 100 dwellings to provide a minimum of 5% self-build properties is not. The deliverability of such housing is an additional level of complexity that will potentially constrain and slow down the deliverability of housing. Provision should remain as an aspiration and not a policy requirement.

Proposed that the wording be changed to "Developments of 100 dwellings or more will be encouraged to provide a minimum of 5% self-build properties..."

Support

Representation ID: 14982

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Support the final paragraph of Policy 7.2 - In respect of constraints, it should be made clear that this includes the ability to provide a site with appropriate infrastructure. For example, where a high density scheme cannot be supported by the existing or an improved local highway network, this is a constraint that will be taken into consideration and a different mix and type of properties would be considered, where it addresses the highway issue.

Support

Representation ID: 14985

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

This policy is supported in general. However the consideration of site constraints which might affect achieved densities should include the ability of the proposal, at density levels specified by policy, to be adequately served by existing or improved infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 14990

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Reference to Site Ref: 044 - Land at Priests Lane, appendix 2 identifies this combined site as being able to deliver approximately 130 dwellings. This is at a density stated in the Table to be 96dph. However as both sites making up this allocation total 5.35 hectares in area, density to achieve 130 dwellings would equate to approximately 24.3 dph.

Recommended correction: the table contained within Appendix 2 to the Draft Local Plan, should be corrected to read 24 dph.

Comment

Representation ID: 15081

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Recommended Change: - The Phasing Estimate within the table at Appendix 2 to the Draft Local Plan should be amended to show delivery within the 0-5 years time period, at least for that part of the allocation within the Ursuline Sisters ownership (Site Ref: 044). The site is unused and unoccupied with no barriers to it being made available immediately. It would, thus, be deliverable within the 0-5 years phasing estimate.