Report to follow.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, a member of the public resident within the Borough may ask a maximum of two questions relating to the business of the Council providing notice had been received by 10.00am two clear working days before the relevant meeting.  

Six questions had been received from Brentwood residents, only one of which had been received before the agenda was published.  Mrs Gearon-Simm had not attended the meeting and therefore her question was not put.

Mr Allum put the following questions to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Mrs McKinlay:

1.  Are the two Priests Lane LDP sites being considered as one or individually by BBC?

Cllr Mrs Mckinlay responded:  The two sites are actually separate technically but the site is being considered as one in terms of planning and potential mitigations in relation to concerns that have been raised.  In terms of LDP perspective, while they are technically separate we are looking at them as one site.

 2.  In the event it's decided to proceed with the LDP for either of the two Priests Lane sites, then what will be the pedestrian and vehicular access routes to these developments?

Cllr Mrs McKinlay responded:  I live in Shenfield and use Priests Lane myself and am very familiar with the constraints referred to by Mr Allum and can understand the justification around some of the concerns but in terms of the process the LDP looks to identify land for development.  Part of that process involves Brentwood Borough Council in talking to Essex County Council and other partners, the NHS and a number of other organisations that would obviously have an interest in terms of what the Council was doing.  But in terms of the specifics to any one site that includes the access, the size of the houses and where they are going to go, that will be looked at as part of the planning application that needs to come forward.  So there could be a piece of land that was in the LDP, an application then comes forward and if the issues can’t be addressed satisfactorily then that planning permission could be denied. That’s not to say they would not come back and address those problems.

There is the difference between identifying the site for development and actually looking at the detail of that development. In specifically answering the question with regards to access that would very much depend on what we are looking at as an application to see what would go on the site.  At this stage it’s about looking at ‘is access possible?’ so the access onto Priests Lane and for any other options – if that could be satisfied at that high level then that would go forward as part of the Plan.  So that the real detailed answer to some of these questions would need to come about as part of the planning application and not the LDP process.

Mrs Allum put the following questions to Cllr Mrs McKinlay:

3.  If the access routes are not known, then how and when will they be decided?

Cllr Mrs McKinlay responded: The same answer as the previous question – clearly looking at access it would be a part of the planning application that came forward but at this stage of the process we are also looking at the traffic flows and pedestrian opportunities but the detail of that will come forward as part of the planning application.

4.  In the event of the LDP proceeding for the two Priests Lane sites, then what are the plans for upgrading the access routes and infrastructure to cope with the increased demand?

Cllr Mrs McKinlay responded:  Again when we look at the detailed application then we will obviously have more information.  What I can say at this stage is that I have previously met with some of the representatives in Priests Lane to discuss it and I have said that I’m happy to do that again so I make that offer once again tonight to the group I met previously – they could come in and see me and talk through some of the detail.  A lot of it is about understanding the process and I fully take on board the concerns that are being raised and without getting into that debate tonight we all know it’s a constrained site but it is about understanding the process in terms of the order of things and also some of the constraints that we as an authority take on board when we are delivering the Plan and hopefully that meeting would help explain some of that.

Mrs Skinner put the following question to Cllr Mrs McKinlay:

A significant length of time has passed since the publication of the LDP and the submission of responses, however there has been very little transparency about the process.  There has not been an open forum for the public to discuss with the Council the issues raised in the responses and at the moment, the process does not feel like a consultation.  Could the Council Members explain why there is so little interaction with the public in a matter of such importance to the Borough's residents and when they propose to hold a public discussion meeting?

Cllr Mrs McKinlay responded as follows: Members will be aware that previously a number of consultations have taken place on the LDP as part of the ongoing process about feedback and evidence gathering. I also held a public meeting in Shenfield some time ago to explain to people around how the process works and the constraints in which we are working.  There is going to be an Extraordinary Council meeting in the middle of next month where the next round of the LDP consultation is being tabled and that is looking for approval to go out to Regulation 18 and what that means is the next round of consultation on the draft Plan.  Following the feedback on that the final amendments and changes to the Plan before we go out to Regulation 19 which is the final sharing of the Plan ahead of the submission to the Government Inspector for consideration.  In terms of the radio silence if you like over the last few months it has been a very difficult process because we have been looking at the numbers.  Shortly before the summer there were some changes brought forward from government which impacted on our numbers and increased them and there is an item later tonight in terms of a government consultation going on at the moment around how the objectively assessed number is arrived at so that the consultation is requiring us to respond with our thoughts. There is some good, some bad in it but until we can draw that line in the sand and know exactly where we are as it’s very difficult and I’ll be talking more on this later on. It’s very difficult for us to move forward.  It is a long process and a frustrating process – it’s a process which each time we’ve nearly got over the line so to speak the numbers have changed and we’ve had to go back and look again at the evidence that goes with that so it’s testing.  I understand that it’s frustrating for all involved but we do have to make sure that we are following the letter of the law in the process if we are to have the confidence of submitting a sound plan.  Because if we have that plan thrown out and we can look at it and see what needs to be tweaked that’s one thing.  If we submit in the knowledge we haven’t actually followed the process properly it will be to the huge detriment to the Borough and all the efforts of everybody who has contributed.  The next key date is the next Extraordinary Council meeting in November and after that will follow the next period of consultation.