BASILDON BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

25 July 2018

LOCAL PLAN: RECONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OF SITE H10, IN ADDITION TO SITE H11 IN NOAK BRIDGE

Report by: Head of Regeneration and Economic Development

Enquiries to: Amanda Parrott, Team Manager – Planning Policy 01268 208179 [email protected]

Enclosures: Enclosure No. 1 - Risk Management Implications Enclosure No. 2 - Extract of Sustainability Appraisal – Appraisal of policy H12 in the Draft Local Plan and alternative site 5 Enclosure No. 3 - Extract of Sustainability Appraisal – Appraisals of policies H10 and H11 in the Publication Local Plan Enclosure No. 4 - Submission by Croudace in respect of site H10 Enclosure No. 5 - Submission by Landhold Capital in respect of site H11

Electronic Only Enclosure No. 6 - Publication Local Plan Service Impact Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

At an Extraordinary Meeting of Council on 7 June 2018, a motion was approved rescinding the decision of Council on 22 March 2018 to publish and submit the Local Plan. In rescinding the earlier decision of Council, the approved motion identified specific elements of the Local Plan to be reviewed, prior to it returning to Council for reconsideration at a later date. This report covers one of those areas specified in that motion.

Part 2ii. of the approved motion requires the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee to ‘Reconsider the merits of H10, in addition to H11 in Noak Bridge’.

This report presents the evidence that needs to be considered in relation to this matter, in order to enable the Committee to debate the merits of the options.

Committee is asked for a policy steer in relation to this specific matter In order to enable further work to be undertaken to prepare a revised version of the Local Plan. This can then be presented to the Committee and then Council for reconsideration in accordance with the revised Local Development Scheme, which was approved by this Committee on 28 June 2018, and will be considered by Council on 19 July 2018. CORPORATE PLAN PROMISES:

Corporate Plan Promises

- Strong, safe and healthy communities with access to quality homes - Vibrant town centres and a thriving economy for everyone - Enhanced local environment and increased pride in our borough

WARD(S):

All Wards

RECOMMENDATION:

The Committee:

1) Reconsiders the merits of including site H10, in addition to site H11 in Noak Bridge, having regard to those matters raised in this report, and the evidence presented.

2) Provides a steer to officers as to their preferred option in relation to Noak Bridge, based on lawful, sound and logical planning reasons. ______

BACKGROUND

Plan-making Context

Site options in the vicinity of Noak Bridge have been considered as to whether they could make a reasonable contribution to meeting development needs throughout the preparation of the Local Plan, including previous work on the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy between Preferred Options 2012 and Revised Preferred Options 2014. It can be acknowledged therefore that Noak Bridge has consistently featured as a possible growth area during planning policy option development.

It is important for the Committee to distinguish however that the LDF Core Strategy was not seeking to allocate specific sites, rather more broad locations and was seeking to plan for a lower scale of housing need, forecast at the time to be in the order of 16,000 homes by 2031. The Committee will be aware that the now rescinded Publication Local Plan 2018 determined that the current full, objectively assessed need for housing stands at between 19,440 and 19,770 by 2034.

Site Policy H10

The location of Policy H10 has featured as part of all options that sought to accommodate some of the borough’s development needs as urban extensions to the Basildon urban settlement area. It was not included in the Preferred Options 2012, which sought to protect all Green Belt from development. In the Revised Preferred Options 2014 it was considered to be less sustainable than other locations identified. Site Policy H11

The Publication Local Plan Policy H11 site was not included within the proposals set out in the LDF Core Strategy, due to the implications that development in this location was considered to pose to landscape and Green Belt coalescence. Draft Local Plan

As part of work on the Draft Local Plan 2016, site specific work was undertaken to define the specific locations for development in the Basildon borough. As a consequence of this work, the Draft Local Plan identified the site to the east of Noak Bridge as allocation H12. It was proposed that this site accommodates 360 homes and a new primary school. Through the consultation on the Draft Local Plan, it became clear that this development alone was not sufficient to support the provision of a new school. Furthermore, additional land to the north of Wash Road was promoted for development through the consultation process.

At its meeting of September 2016, the former Cabinet considered the representations made in respect of the Draft Local Plan and agreed key actions around infrastructure and around alternative sites promoted to the Council through the consultation process (Minute No. 2016:419). These are set out below.

Action No. Action Soundness Issue 5 Undertake proportionate consultation, and complete Justified / site specific appraisals for any new alternative housing Effective / site proposals received through the consultation Legal process. Once complete, use the full suite of evidence Compliance to determine whether the distribution of development should be altered to ensure the most appropriate development sites feature in the Publication Local Plan. If appropriate amend policy SD2, and any associated housing policies, to reflect the outcomes of this work. 30 Reconsider previously discounted alternative sites, Justified having regard to the information submitted during the consultation, as part of the work for ACTION 5. 37 In discussion with service commissioners and Effective / Duty providers, ensure that all forms of child care and to Cooperate education provision within the borough, is sufficient to meet the needs arising from the growth proposed within the Local Plan. Identify within relevant policies trigger points and policy requirements where appropriate to ensure alignment of provision and development.

Alternative Site 5 – Land North of Wash Road was subject to consultation as part of the New and Alternative Sites Consultation which occurred in November and December 2016. In addition to giving rise to comments around common planning concerns regarding Green Belt and Infrastructure matters, concerns were also raised around the proximity of this site to the Laindon Airstrip, located on farmland to the north of the site. The investigation of this additional matter was therefore identified as an additional key action to be addressed when the New and Alternative Sites Consultation was approved by the Infrastructure, Growth and Development (IGD) Committee at its meeting in August 2017 (Minute Number. 2017:363). Following investigations, it was possible to conclude that the Civil Aviation Authority would not object to housing proposals in this location.

However, the site to the North of Wash Road is outside the area contained by the A127 and Wash Road. There were concerns raised by officers that land to the north of Wash Road was uncontained and posed a risk in terms of urban sprawl. It was not therefore recommended to the meeting of the IGD Committee on 7 December 2017. Officers recommended:

H12 Land East of Noak Bridge: 15ha allocation, as previously identified in the Draft Local Plan delivering: 480 homes – older peoples’ accommodation only as there is insufficient pupil product from this scale of development to enable provision of a new primary school and no options to expand existing primary school.

However, in recognition that Green Belt harm is a matter of planning judgement, an alternative option was also presented which dealt with the issue around generating sufficient ‘pupil product’ for the primary school by locating additional growth within the settlement instead. This was also set out in the report to the Committee meeting of 7 December 2017.

Alternative for H12 Land East of Noak Bridge: Alternative site 5, comprising 11ha of land, has the potential to deliver around a further 350 homes in the settlement of Noak Bridge. If delivered alongside site H12 this would generate the pupil product required to facilitate the provision of a new primary school in Noak Bridge. This would need to be allocated within the H12 site however, due to Essex County Council’s design and location requirements for new primary schools. There are concerns that alternative site 5 is not currently contained in any way, and presents a risk to the Green Belt from future urban sprawl northwards and eastwards. However, this could be addressed through landscaping requirements along the site’s boundaries. There would also need to be testing of the A127/Noak Bridge junction as to whether this additional growth of development around Wash Road can be accommodated through appropriate highway mitigation.

The Committee at that time, took the decision to secure the education infrastructure required in this area to support growth, and agreed the principle of allocating both sites within the Noak Bridge settlement for this purpose (Minute Number: 2017:642).

In addition, reinforcing the principle of securing infrastructure, where possible, through how it makes development decisions, the Committee also resolved the following generic principle (Minute Number: 2017:642):

Recommendation 2J: To make sure that the critical mass of development is provided in the right areas in order to bring forward the required expansion, or where possible, construction of new infrastructure through the setting of Local Plan allocations and policies.

Following that meeting however, and as a consequence of ongoing discussions with the School Planning Team at Essex County Council, it became clear that the preference was for an extension to the existing primary school in Noak Bridge, rather than a new one form entry (FE) primary school. An extension to the existing school would however be more expensive than normal, as the school site is constrained and would require the construction of an additional storey onto the school and the provision of a 3G sports pitch, in order to accommodate the additional pupils. There therefore remained an imperative to secure enough homes within Noak Bridge to pay for a full FE, as this was necessary to fund the extension to the primary school.

The now rescinded Publication Local Plan therefore includes both sites within Noak Bridge, and requires both sites to help pay for the extension to the Primary School with recognition of the higher cost of that extension compared to normal. It was these allocations and associated policies agreed by the Infrastructure, Growth and Development Committee on 19 March 2018 that were subsequently approved by Council on 22 March 2018. It should be noted that Cllr Sargent moved an amendment to the recommendation to Council on 22 March 2018, as follows, which was lost on the vote at that time:

Remove Policy H11 – 11ha of land north of Noak Bridge, Basildon reducing the Plan’s housing numbers by 350 homes and revert back to the option considered by the Infrastructure, Growth and Development Committee on 7 December 2017 for 20ha of land east of Noak Bridge coming forward for 400 homes but limiting the type of development to older peoples accommodation only. (Minute Number: 2018:197)

Matters to be Considered

The motion of 7 June 2018 rescinded the agreed Publication Local Plan, and now asks the Committee to ‘reconsider the merits of including H10, in addition to H11 in Noak Bridge.’ The Committee in undertaking this task are therefore recommended to consider the following matters:

1. The Sustainability Appraisal of the sites in this location (H10 and H11 in the Publication Local Plan 2018, and formally H12 in the Draft Local Plan 2016). The relevant extracts of which, provided as Enclosures No. 2 and No. 3 to this report, show the appraisal of sites H10 and H11. Of key consideration should be the Draft Local Plan appraisal of former site H12 (Enclosure No. 2) which shows site H10 as the preferred policy and site H11 as alternative 3. This concluded that whilst alternative 3 had potential negative impacts on the landscape in this location, it was better than site H10 in terms of other matters as a consequence of its closer proximity to the village’s core. The Sustainability Appraisal Main Report concludes the following:

Policy H10 (previously referred to as H12 in the Draft Local Plan – see Appendix 3) scores less well than one of its reasonable alternatives: 3 – land north of Wash Road. Policy H10 scores worse than reasonable alternative 3, particularly against SA objectives 11 (access to services and facilities), 14 (greenhouse gas emissions) and 15 (air, land and noise pollution). This is because unlike alternative option 3, Policy H10 is not within easy walking distance of as good a range of existing and planned local services and facilities, including a local or neighbourhood centre. This is likely to increase the number of cars on the road, with adverse effects on pollution. However, it should be noted that since the publication of the Draft Local Plan and the appraisal of the reasonable alternative north of Wash Road, a variation of the alternative has been allocated in the Publication Local Plan as Policy H11.

National Planning Policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that the main purpose of the planning system is to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Committee therefore need to consider the weight that should be attached to the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal when considering options around site allocations in Noak Bridge.

2. Housing Need: The borough has an objectively assessed need for housing of 19,440 to 19,770 homes over a 20 year period. The now rescinded Publication Local Plan made provision for 18,180 homes. This represented a shortfall of 1,260 homes. The removal of site H10 would potentially increase this shortfall to 1,660 homes if it were not to be re-provided elsewhere, whilst the removal of site H11 would potentially increase the shortfall to 1,610 homes on the same basis. There is an expectation in the NPPF that local planning authorities will:

‘use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework (paragraph 47).’

The ‘positively prepared’ test of soundness, against which the Local Plan will be examined once submitted requires that:

‘the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development (Paragraph 182).’

Taking these matters into account, the Committee need to have regard to the implications that removal of either H10 or H11 will have on the overall supply of housing in the Local Plan and be satisfied that any changes made can further be justified in policy terms. The Committee also needs to have regard to the Duty to Cooperate when an unmet need arises. The Council will need to demonstrate to neighbouring authorities that it has done everything it reasonably can before it can expect others to help address the borough’s unmet need. The Committee will recall that the failure to do so contributed significantly to the failure in law of the Castle Point Local Plan in 2016. A report on the combined implications of any changes to the housing supply position will be presented to this Committee at its meeting of the 13 September 2018 in order to ensure that these are fully understood, and if necessary and possible appropriately addressed.

3. Highways: Highway modelling has been undertaken to support the development of the Local Plan. This includes both an assessment of the impact of the development proposed in the Draft Local Plan, the mitigation proposed in that document, an assessment of the proposals set out in the now rescinded Publication Local Plan, and the mitigation proposed in that document. This modelling took place between 2016 and 2018 by Ringway Jacobs, on behalf of both Basildon Council and Essex County Council in partnership. Copies of Part 1 and Part 2 of the final Transport & Highway Impact Assessment were presented as part of the report on South West Billericay provided at the previous meeting of this committee on 17 July 2018. This work demonstrates that there are feasible highway mitigation options available to accommodate the higher level of growth arising from both sites in Noak Bridge.

4. Education: The scale of growth proposed in Noak Bridge within the now rescinded Publication Local Plan required an additional 1 FE at Primary School level to be provided. Discussions with School Planning Team at Essex County Council have indicated that this would be best met through an extension to the existing primary school in Noak Bridge. Whilst the site of that school is constrained, feasibility work has indicated that a 1 FE extension is possible, although it may cost more than an extension of a school on a less constrained site. Officers within the School Planning Team are therefore concerned that permitting too few homes in Noak Bridge may result in either an inability to provide an extension to the existing primary school, resulting in the need to bus children to school at public cost; or else the need for Essex County Council to subsidise half of the extension to the existing primary school from their limited capital budgets.

However, it has been noted by the School Planning Team that Site H9: Land west of Steeple View will also generate a pupil product just short of 0.5 FE. This site falls within the catchment of Millhouse Primary School and Nursery in Laindon, to the south of the A127. It has been acknowledged that there may be demand from this site for school places in Noak Bridge, or elsewhere to the north of the A127, as residents seek to avoid crossing the busy strategic road network at peak time either by car or foot. This site could therefore also be expected to make an appropriate contribution towards the extension of the school at Noak Bridge instead of within its current admission catchment area. This would however require the text of that Local Plan policy to be amended accordingly.

In all cases, Early Years provision alongside the primary school is required and secondary provision will be addressed in the longer term through the provision of additional Secondary School places in the Basildon urban area.

5. Deliverability: Effectiveness, or deliverability, is a test of soundness. There needs to be a reasonable prospect that the proposals in the Local Plan can be delivered, which will be tested by the Planning Inspector. Sites H10 and H11 are being independently promoted by separate developers. Both sites are of a size, and in a location where they could come forward within the early to middle parts of the Local Plan period with limited difficulties. The main deliverability challenge in this regard would be the aligning of the developer contributions from these two sites to secure the school extension in a timely manner. These sites combined provide the critical mass of development required to enable this to occur.

In terms of the ability of these sites to deliver specialist accommodation, this is less than certain. The promoter for site H10 is a housebuilding company whose product is traditional family housing. They would not normally engage in building specialist older people schemes, and raised objections to the suggestion of this in the report to the IGD Committee of 7 December 2017. Nonetheless, their proposal for this site, as set out in Enclosure No. 3, and reported in more detail below, is compliant with wider policies in the emerging Local Plan requiring a mix of older peoples accommodation to be supplied as part of the housing mix.

The promoter for site H11 is a development company who specialise in working towards getting planning consent for a site, before selling it on to housebuilding companies. There is therefore the potential to secure a different mix of homes on this site as this promoter does not have to focus on a specific product, and can search the market for builders who are interested in the schemes for which it gains consent for. However, there is significant risk for this promoter associated with pressing forward entirely with an older peoples’ scheme, without a specific housebuilder on board. Therefore, it is unlikely that this developer would bring forward a scheme entirely comprising older peoples’ accommodation either.

The Committee should be mindful of these deliverability issues when seeking to identify a preferred option for Noak Bridge. 6. Green Belt: At its meeting of 7 December 2017, the IGD Committee resolved that they understood that exceptional circumstances required by the NPPF may exist to justify the consideration of sites in the Green Belt for the provision of housing development. Following this, the Committee went on to consider the merits of a range of sites across the borough currently located within the Green Belt, and identified both sites within Noak Bridge as locations which were considered suitable for housing, having had regard to the balance between housing need and Green Belt harm in each specific location.

In considering harm, it should be noted by this Committee that site H10 falls within Area 23 as identified in the Green Belt Review 2017. This concluded that Area 23 makes a partial contribution to the Green Belt purposes. Harm is more significant in this location in relation to urban sprawl to the east, as the area forms part of an important rural break between Noak Bridge and Crays Hill and if developed, could increase the risk of settlements merging.

Meanwhile, site H11 falls within Area 22 as identified in the Green Belt Review 2017. Area 22 is considered to make a very strong contribution to the Green Belt purposes. Any proposed development will be classed as sprawl, increase risk of coalescence, and cause significant harm to the countryside due to the open nature of the site.

The Committee is advised to weigh-up the harm arising from each site against the need for sustainable development, and in particular the need for housing and supporting infrastructure in reaching a conclusion in relation to the site options available.

Developer Representations 2018

The sites under consideration in this report are being promoted by separate development companies. Each promoter was invited by officers to provide a submission for inclusion with this report in order to ensure they had the opportunity to set out the merits of their respective sites.

Site H10: Land East of Noak Bridge: A submission on behalf of Croudace, a housebuilding company, is included as Enclosure No. 4. This sets out proposals for 340 homes, and 60 units of older peoples’ accommodation, a new Early Years and Childcare facility, and 7.5ha of public open space. They have indicated commitment to 35% affordable housing, contributing towards the extension to Noak Bridge Primary School, improved pedestrian and cycle accessibility and public transport and local highway improvements. They have also committed to applying the Essex Design Guide in the design of the new development.

Site H11: Land North of Wash Road: A submission on behalf of Landhold Captial, a development company, is included as Enclosure No 5. This sets out proposals for around 300 homes, a community facility and open space provision to the north of Wash Road. A landscape assessment has been provided as part of the submission which has been used to identify an appropriate development area. This has resulted in a level of development for this site lower than that set out in the now rescinded Publication Local Plan which was instead seeking 350 homes. Additionally, the development area is slightly narrower, but slightly wider than the allocation in that plan, to reflect this landscape evidence. The Committee may wish to have regard to the material provided by the site promoters when considering the options available in relation to development options for Noak Bridge.

OPTIONS

1) Retain both allocations H10 and H11 in Noak Bridge. However, given the information provided by the site promoter for site H11, the capacity of this site should be amended to around 300 homes. Combined, these sites provide the critical mass to ensure infrastructure provision in this location, particularly the provision of an extension to the primary school which can be achieved whilst also maintaining the scale of unmet housing need as set out in the now rescinded Publication Local Plan (notwithstanding any steer provided separately in relation to other elements of the motion from 7 June 2018 being considered between July and October 2018). 2) Retain only allocation H10. This site scores less well in sustainability terms than site H11. However, its impact on the openness and purposes of including land within the Green Belt is less significant than site H11. This site is deliverable, but is unlikely to secure a specialist scheme for just older people, that can be proved to be deliverable, as set out in the motion of 7 June 2018, which means the inclusions of clauses in that regard would likely be found unsound. In order to ensure any development was supported by sufficient education provision, despite the loss of site H11, it would be necessary to amend policy H9, alongside the removal of policy H11, in order to ensure that development of the site to the West of Steeple View also contributes towards the extension at the existing primary school in Noak Bridge. 3) Retain only allocation H11. Given the information provided by the site promoter, the capacity of this site should be amended to around 300 homes, and the identified development area should be amended to reflect the landscape evidence. This site scores better in sustainability terms than site H10 due to its proximity to the village’s core. However, its impact on the openness and purposes of including land within the Green Belt is more significant than site H10. This site is deliverable, and has the potential to secure a more diverse mix of housing types than site H10. However, it is unlikely to secure solely specialist accommodation for older people as set out in the motion of 7 June 2018, which means the inclusions of clauses in that regard would likely be found unsound. In order to ensure it is supported by sufficient education provision, it would be necessary to amend policy H9 alongside the removal of policy H10 in order to ensure that development of the site to the West of Steeple View also contributes towards the extension at the existing primary school in Noak Bridge.

As a consequence of the uncertainty associated with securing the delivery of a scheme solely for the provision of older peoples’ specialist accommodation, this option is not listed as it would be unsound.

LEGISLATION/POLICY

The Local Plan is being prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended and informed by the NPPF and other relevant national planning policy. Detailed regulations in relation to plan-making are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended. It is a requirement of the Acts and the associated regulations for the Local Plan to be prepared in accordance with the timetable established in the Local Development Scheme, and subject to an examination into its soundness.

There is the potential for judicial review of this decision-making process. In the case of IM Properties v Lichfield District Council, judicial review was sought both at the time the decision was taken to publish and submit their Local Plan, and also after the inspector recommended the adoption of the Local Plan with amendments. There is therefore a need for the entire Local Plan decision-making process to be robust and legally compliant if the Council is to withstand such challenges.

The NPPF sets out national policy in relation to what constitutes sustainable development, national policy in relation to housing growth and the constraints that should be considered when identifying suitable sites for housing delivery, and also the tests of soundness that the Planning Inspector will consider when examining the Local Plan.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Corporate Plan Promises

The advice contained in this report is aimed at ensuring that in reconsidering the matters related to Noak Bridge, consideration is given to the cross-cutting Corporate Plan Promises of:

 Strong, safe and healthy communities with access to quality homes  Vibrant town centres and a thriving economy for everyone  Enhanced local environment and increased pride in our borough

The Local Plan, once successfully progressed through examination to adoption, will increase the supply of housing land available in the borough, assist regeneration of urban areas and town centres, and protect the wider environment, with opportunities for enhancements to environmental quality identified, minimising the impacts of growth.

Financial Implications

As all options have been previously considered, there is no significant additional work required to pursue any of the options presented in this report. Consequently, the direct financial implications associated with reconsidering this matter are minimal.

However, it should be recognised that £1.5m has been spent on bringing forward the Local Plan to date. A further £455k has already been budgeted for 2018/19 & 2019/2020 to progress the Local Plan to adoption. There are therefore financial risks associated with bringing forward a plan which is unlawful or unsound, as set out in Enclosure No.1. Therefore, the Committee should be satisfied of the soundness and lawfulness of any policy change it seeks to make, in order to minimise financial risk.

Risk Management Implications

The risk management implications are set out at Enclosure no. 1.

Inclusion, Diversity and Community Cohesion Implications

A copy of the Service Impact Assessment for the now rescinded Local Plan is provided as Enclosure No. 6. This highlighted the importance of the Local Plan in ensuring the development needs of the local community are met, both now and in the future, in order to promote community cohesion and inclusiveness. The Committee will need to consider how the policy direction it takes will impact on these matters.

A revised Service Impact Assessment will be prepared to accompany the revised Local Plan when it is reconsidered by the Committee and Council in October 2018.

Other Relevant Considerations

Duty to Cooperate

Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 introduced the Duty to Cooperate in relation to plan- making. It requires local planning authorities to cooperate with their neighbours and other prescribed bodies on matters of cross-boundary, strategic importance. Housing, economic growth and infrastructure are identified within the NPPF as areas where the Duty to Cooperate would apply.

In relation to Basildon Borough, it sits within the South Essex Housing Market Area, and also has strong infrastructure and economic development links with the other authorities in South Essex. This therefore forms the starting point for Duty to Cooperate work, building on a long established programme of joint working that arose from the former Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership. It should however be noted that Basildon Borough is also bound by Chelmsford to the north and Brentwood Borough to the west. It is expected that when unmet needs arise, the other districts within a housing market area are the first area of search. It should be noted that all other authorities in South Essex are equally, if not more tightly, constrained by matters of infrastructure, Green Belt and flood risk in particular.

In order to address the need for growth in South Essex in a more coordinated and strategic way, the South Essex authorities, including Brentwood, have formed the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA). It is now working towards, amongst other things, the preparation of a Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) (which was due to be incorporated into the Basildon Borough Local Development Scheme by Council on 19 July 2018) which will identify strategic growth locations, within the area in order to deliver the economic growth, key pieces of infrastructure and the 90,000 plus homes required. This will provide a longer-term solution to plan-making in South Essex, but does not address the need for housing arising now, and reflected in house price increases, affordability challenges and the extent of housing registers. There is therefore an imperative for Councils to go as far as possible within their Local Plans to enable delivery in the next five to ten years especially, and the Planning Inspectorate, and the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government will be seeking evidence that the Council has gone as far as it can reasonably be expected to go in bringing forward housing through its Local Plan.

Intervention Letters of 16 November 2017 and 23 March 2018

On 16 November 2017, the Secretary of State announced that he intended to intervene in the plan-making activities of 15 local planning authorities who had failed to put a local plan in place since the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 came into effect. Basildon Borough Council is one of these authorities, alongside its neighbours of Brentwood Borough Council and Castle Point Borough Council. A response was sent to this letter setting out the programme Basildon Borough Council had in place to deliver a Local Plan in accordance with the Local Development Scheme adopted in October 2017.

On 23 March 2018, the Secretary of State again wrote to Basildon Council indicating that he was satisfied with the response of the Council to the challenge posed in his initial letter, and that at that time no further action would be taken in respect of intervention. The Council’s progress would however be monitored closely.

Since that time, the motion of Council of 7 June 2018 has meant that the programme advocated to the Secretary of State can no longer be met, and the programme for submitting a Local Plan has now slipped from Quarter 3 2018 to Quarter 1 2019, as per calender years. The new programme was set out in the Local Development Scheme approved by this Committee for recommendation to Council on 28 June 2018.

Officers and senior Members have engaged with the Ministry in relation to this matter, and they are taking an active interest and are therefore fully aware of the full, detailed programme of work agreed in relation to meeting the timetable in the revised Local Development Scheme. This new programme of work is being closely monitored by the Ministry, and an officer level meeting is currently being arranged to ensure they are fully aware of all the issues the Council is working on. It is not known at this time as to whether further actions beyond this will be taken by the Ministry, or if the Secretary of State will be issuing any further letters to the Council in relation to his previous stance of possible intervention.

Background Papers

None

Published Documents

Publication Local Plan (2018) Draft Local Plan (2016) Draft Local Plan Statement of Consultation (2016) Core Strategy Revised Preferred Options Report (2013) Part 1 - Draft Local Plan Transport & Highway Impact Assessment (2017) Part 2 - Publication Local Plan Transport & Highway Impact Assessment (March 2018)

All published evidence for the Local Plan can be found online at: http://www.basildon.gov.uk/article/2155/Local-Plan---Evidence-Base