Parish Council Response to Chelmsford Local Plan – Additional Sites Consultation (Regulation 19)
Later today, Woodham Ferrers and Bicknacre Parish Council will submit its formal response to Chelmsford City Council’s Focused Consultation on Additional Sites (Regulation 19).
The consultation required respondents to answer a series of statutory questions relating to legal compliance, duty to co-operate and soundness of the Local Plan. For transparency, the Parish Council’s responses to those questions are set out below. At this time, it is not envisaged that the Parish Council’s response will alter in any way.
The Parish Council’s objection relates specifically to the proposed allocation of land west of Barbrook Way, Bicknacre (site SGS11c).
Question 1 – Legal Compliance
Does the Parish Council consider the Local Plan legally compliant?
Answer: Yes
Explanation:
The Parish Council has not identified any specific procedural or regulatory failures in the preparation or publication of the Focused Consultation Additional Sites (Regulation 19) document that would render it legally non-compliant under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
The Parish Council’s objections relate instead to matters of soundness, justification, effectiveness and consistency with national policy, which are addressed below.
Proposed modifications relating to legal compliance:
Not applicable.
The Parish Council does not propose modifications in relation to legal compliance. Its requested modifications relate to matters of soundness.
Question 2 – Duty to Co-operate
Does the Parish Council consider the Local Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?
Answer: Yes
Explanation:
The Parish Council has not been provided with evidence that Chelmsford City Council has failed to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with the prescribed bodies in accordance with section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
On that basis, the Parish Council does not assert a failure of the Duty to Co-operate. Its objections relate to the outcomes of the plan and matters of soundness.
Proposed changes relating to the Duty to Co-operate:
Not applicable.
The Parish Council does not propose modifications in relation to the Duty to Co-operate.
Question 3 – Soundness of the Plan
Does the Parish Council consider the Local Plan ‘sound’?
Answer: No
The Parish Council considers the plan is not:
-
Positively prepared
-
Justified
-
Effective
-
Consistent with national policy
Main reasons:
The Additional Sites (Regulation 19) document is considered unsound due to the inclusion of land west of Barbrook Way, Bicknacre (SGS11c) for the following reasons:
Justification:
The allocation of this greenfield site is not adequately justified when Chelmsford City Council maintains a substantial Brownfield Land Register under the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017. The Register runs to 35 pages, yet the Additional Sites document includes only one brownfield site and does not explain why brownfield opportunities have not been prioritised, contrary to national policy.
The scale of development proposed has increased significantly from approximately 20 dwellings in earlier versions of the plan to 250 dwellings, without clear or proportionate justification. Previous objections by the Parish Council have not been tested through examination yet appear to have been dismissed.
Effectiveness:
The site is undeliverable within the plan period due to unresolved access constraints. A narrow strip of unregistered land lies between Barbrook Way and the site, preventing lawful access. Ownership of this land is unclear and may involve a dissolved developer or potential Bona Vacantia proceedings. Until ownership and access rights are resolved, development cannot lawfully proceed.
Consistency with national policy:
The allocation conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework requirement that plans must be justified, deliverable and effective.
Requested Changes to Make the Plan Sound
The Parish Council requests that land west of Barbrook Way, Bicknacre (SGS11c) is removed from the Additional Sites (Regulation 19) document.
Alternatively, the site should be deferred unless and until:
-
lawful access to the site is demonstrably secured;
-
ownership of the intervening land is resolved; and
-
clear justification is provided explaining why this greenfield allocation is required ahead of identified brownfield sites.
Participation in the Independent Examination
The Parish Council has indicated that it wishes to participate in the Independent Examination.
This is considered necessary to explain the site-specific access and deliverability constraints affecting the Barbrook Way allocation, including unresolved land ownership and access issues which cannot be fully addressed through written representations alone.
Executive Summary
Woodham Ferrers and Bicknacre Parish Council objects to the inclusion of land west of Barbrook Way, Bicknacre (SGS11c), in the Additional Sites (Regulation 19) document.
The Parish Council considers the plan unsound as the allocation is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy. The site is greenfield land and has been allocated despite the existence of a substantial Brownfield Land Register, with no clear explanation as to why brownfield opportunities have not been prioritised.
The scale of development has increased significantly from earlier versions of the plan without adequate justification.
Critically, the site is undeliverable due to unresolved access constraints arising from a strip of unregistered land between the site and Barbrook Way. Ownership of this land is unclear, preventing lawful access and meaning development cannot be brought forward within the plan period.
The Parish Council therefore requests removal of the site from the Additional Sites document.
Future Notifications
The Parish Council has requested to be notified of:
-
Submission of the Local Plan for Examination
-
Publication of the Inspector’s Report
-
Adoption of the Local Plan