INSPECTOR’S MATTERS, ISSUES & QUESTIONS

P4 Ongar Hearing Statement Appendix 1

Response from Jim Padfield.

Appendix1:Page1

AppendixIGreenBeltfromWeekOneHearingStatement.TheproposedchangestotheGreenBeltBoundarywereneverassessedonasitebysitebasis.RathertheReviewassessedonlywiderparcels,whichcoveredmultiplesites,eachwiththeirdifferingqualitiesandissues.ItwasalwaysinevitablethatindividualsiteswillhavedifferentimpactsontheGreenBeltpurposesfromthoseoftheparcelasawholeofwhichtheyarebutonepart.Thestage2GreenBeltReviewwasnevererrorcheckedevenwhenerrorswererepeatedlypointedout-aswasthecasewithOmissionsiteSR-0090andmanyothersites.Thelackofanycorrectionstothisdocumentisinitselfanexampleofthelackofarobustapproach.InSeptember2015,EFDCpublishedtheirdraftGreenBeltReviewStage1.Itwasastrategicreview,coveringtheentiredistrict,whichwasbrokeninto61largelandparcels.TherelevantonesaroundOngarare:DSR-023–EastofChippingOngarandDSR-024–WestandSouthWestofChippingOngar.Therelevantextractfromthestage1reviewisreproducedimmediatelybelow.

MovingontotheStage2Review,theparcelsDSR-23andDSR-24arebrokendownintosub-parcels.Forinstance,DSR-24.1,24.2,24.3etc.Howeverasfaraswecansee,uniquelyinthewholeGreenBeltReviewreport,thesubparcelswithinDSR-23arenotnumberedfrom.1,butbeginat.2–ietheyarenumbered23.2,23.3,23.4.Thereisnodesignated023.1parcel.ForthosenotfamiliarwithOngarattachedbelowisexplanatoryplan.Thetwoparcels23.2and24.1assessedintheStage2GreenBeltReviewareidentifiedinblue,withtheverbatimGreenBeltdescriptionofthoseparcelstakenfromthestudy,adjoining.Parcel023.1isnotdescribedintheStage2ReviewandsoarelevantquoteistakenfromtheStage1Review.

Appendix1:Page2

Parcel23.2“RiverRodingformsrelativelystrongboundariestothesouthandeast;A414formsstrongboundarytothenorth.Potentialanomalies:Noneidentified.”“TheparcelispredominantlyruralandfreefromdevelopmentwiththeexceptionoftheresidentialdevelopmentatGreatStonyParkinthenorthwestoftheparcel.Theremainderoftheparcelconsistsofopenarablefields,allotmentsonthesettlementedge,ChippingOngarplaygroundandrecreationground,andsomeindividualdetachedpropertieswithgardens.TheThreeForestsWayandStPeter'sWaypublicrightsofwaycrossthroughtheparcelandOngarCastleScheduledMonumentliesinthewestoftheparcel.Theslopingvalleysidesandconsequentvisualconnectivitywiththewidercountrysidetotheeastpresentastrongruralcharacter.“Parcel023.1NotassessedintheStage2GreenBeltReview.StageIReviewstates:“ItisunlikelythatthelossofopennessfromurbanisingGreenBeltlandsouthofStondonRoadandeastoftheMardenAshEstatewouldcauseharmtothesettingofthehistorictownandheritageassets,asthe1950’sdevelopmentprovidesastrongphysicalbarrier.“Parcel024.1“A113formsstrongboundarytothewest;RiverRodingformsrelativelystrongboundarytothesouth;A128formsstrongboundarytotheeast.Potentialanomalies:Noneidentified.Theparcelcontainslittledevelopmentwiththeexceptionofsomedetacheddwellings(primarilyconvertedfarmsandbarns)andbackgardensinthenorthoftheparceladjacenttothesouthernsettlementedgeofChippingOngarandbuildingsatGray'sFarminthewestoftheparcel.TheouterparcelboundaryisstronglydefinedbyastreamandtheRiverRodingalongthesouthwesternandsoutheasternparcelboundaries.

Appendix1:Page3

Inourview,itisobviouswhenreadingthephysicaldescriptionsoftheparcelsinthereport(asreproducedabove),thereisamissingparcelwithintheStage2Review,comprisinglandbetweentheA128tothesouth/southwestandtheRiverRodingtothenorth.ThismissingparcelincludesomissionsiteSR-0090,shownoutlinedingreenontheaboveplan.

RatherthancorrecttheerrorofthecompleteomissionintheGreenBeltassessmentofparcel23.1,theCouncilerroneouslyassessedSR-0090asifitwerepartof023.2inthe2016and2018SiteSelectionReports,assertingthatthereforetheparcelhadunacceptablegreenbeltimpactsandshouldberejectedfromthesiteselectionprocess.

Asaresult,thiserrorhashadadirectimpactontheoutcomeofthesiteselectionprocessandthereforetheconclusionthatthePlanisjustified(i.e.the‘mostappropriatestrategywhenconsideredagainstthereasonablealternatives,basedonproportionateevidence’)isindoubt.WhilstGreenBeltisonlyonefactortobeweighedinthebalance,LocalAuthoritiesmust,inestablishingexceptionalcircumstances,ensuretheychoosetheleastdamagingGreenBeltoptions.Clearlywithoutdoubtthisrequirementisnotsatisfied.Weconsiderthatifmissingparcel023.1hadbeenassessedintheStage2GreenBeltReviewitwouldhavebeenestablishedthat(inlinewiththefindingsoftheStage1reviewasquotedabove)developmentinthislocationwouldnothavebeenprohibitivetositeSR-0090beingretainedinthesiteselectionprocessandbeingconsideredtobeanappropriatelocationfordevelopment.IntheNathanielLitchfield’s2016“StrategicHousingLandAvailabilityAssessmenttoestablishrealisticassumptionsabouttheavailability,suitabilityandthelikelyeconomicviabilityoflandtomeettheidentifiedneedforhousingovertheplanperiod.”SR-0090wasassessedwithabetterscorethanfourofOngar’sAllocatedsites.SR-0090isa‘reasonablealternative’thathasnotbeenproperlyassessed.ThisisjustoneofmanyexamplesoferrorsandomissionsinthefoundationworkinthisPlan.Assuch,itisnotpossibletoconcludethattheGreenBeltAssessmentprocessisrobust,andtherelativeimportanceoftheGreenBeltaroundOngarhasnotbeencorrectlyassessedthroughtheSiteSelectionprocess.