EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: STOP HARLOW NORTH’S RESPONSE TO FURTHER PROPOSED CHNAGES TO THE DRAFT EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: STOP HARLOW NORTH’S RESPONSE TO FURTHER PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN

A. THE SOUNDNESS OF THE FURTHER PROPOSED CHANGES

1. From the perspective of STOP Harlow North (SHN), it was pleasing to see that further work was commissioned by the Government into the review of the Habitats Directive Assessment and the Sustainability Appraisal/ Strategic Environmental Assessment of the draft East of England Plan. It is profoundly disappointing, however, to note that there are very few further changes to the plan as result of this work. The proposals in policies H1, SS1 and HA1 continue to provide for urban extensions to Harlow. Policy HA1 is explicit, stating that “the review to the north should provide for an eventual development of at least 10.000 dwellings and possibly significantly more…”

2. In its representations on the original (2004) version of the East of England Plan, SHN objected strongly to these policies. These objections were supported both by East Herts Council and Hertfordshire County Council and were a focus of considerable debate at the Examination in Public (Matter H1). It is clear that the Examination Panel were convinced by arguments against major development to the north of Harlow and removed it from the Plan. The report of the Panel refers to two sets of reasons for its decision – the lack of adequate infrastructure, and the potential impact on the environment of such large amounts of development.

3. In summary, the inability of the Rye Meads STW to cater for the amount of growth proposed in the Lee and Stort catchment area represents a major planning problem. Ultimately, this affects the overall soundness of the plan because it cannot be delivered. It is SHN’s firm view that that the plan should only be adopted without the proposals for additional housing to the north of Harlow, pending a full review for the period to 2031. This must embrace the findings of a water cycle study and include a robust programme for the delivery of infrastructure.

B. THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE AND THE APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF THE PLAN

4. The Government commissioned the consultants RPS to undertake a fresh review of the requirements under the Habitats Directive. The RPS report and other evidence have established that there is a “likely significant effect” on the European sites in the Lea Valley. The analysis has not then proceeded to consider alternative sets of planning policies which might overcome the problems. Given the degree of uncertainty, the Government cannot proceed with the plan until alternative solutions are examined. The possibilities would include a re-design of the Rye Meads STW, but this has not been investigated and may not be feasible.

5. Comprehensive advice on the requirements for Appropriate Assessment was set out in a draft report prepared for the Government in August 2006. The report was the work of Scott Wilson, Levett-Therivel, Treweek Environmental Consultants, and Land Use Consultants. The process for carrying out an Appropriate Assessment is contained in Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive. This is elaborated in the August 2006 guidelines referred to above

6. Without further studies the Government cannot proceed with the plan because it cannot show that no alternative solutions remain. Even if this were the case, the test of “imperative reasons of public interest” in Stage 4 of the guidelines would need to be applied. Part of that procedure would involve the seeking of an opinion from the European Commission. Although this would not be binding on the Government, to ignore it would most likely prompt legal challenges.

C. THE SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL/SEA

7. In a separate report, RPS has also re-visited and reviewed the Sustainability Appraisal and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Proposed Changes (ERM 2006). The new RPS report reviews the findings of the earlier work mainly in the light of the Appropriate Assessment of the Further Proposed Changes. In the view of SHN, this approach is over-simplistic and limited in its scope. The Appropriate Assessment necessarily is confined to the impact of the plan on sites of European and international importance. The Sustainability Appraisal/SEA must cover the effect of all the policies in the plan in a comprehensive manner.

8. The conclusion of RPS is that these revisions to policies HA1 and WAT2, together with the supporting text, mean that policy HA1 will have no adverse effect on the Lee Valley SPA and the Ramsar Site. This is an astonishing conclusion, given that no detailed studies have been conducted. Thus, the plan can not state with any degree of confidence that there will be no effect on the integrity of the Lee Valley sites, which are of international as well as European importance. The risk of damage is too high, and there is no justification for permitting the degree of development which would cause irreparable damage to the sites. Until detailed studies have been completed and the Appropriate Assessment has been extended to examine alternatives, the RPS conclusion must be rejected.

D. SUMARY

9. In summary SHN wishes to emphasise the following points in response to the Secretary of State’s Further Proposed Changes to the East of England Plan:

The Plan in its current form is unsound and not capable of being delivered;
The strategic proposals for growth in the Rye Meads STW catchment area should be re-examined;
The proposals for development to the north of Harlow should be removed;
Any proposals for growth should be considered as part of the review of the plan for the period to 2031
The review should include consideration of the water cycle study for the Lee and Stort catchment area. This should be funded by the Government and coupled to a robust strategy for the delivery and funding of infrastructure
It cannot be shown that the Further Proposed Changes will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar Site.
The textual amendments in the Further Proposed Changes are a completely inadequate to complete Stage 2 of the Appropriate Assessment
The Appropriate Assessment should progress to the next stage of the process as stated in the Habitats Directive, and consider alternative proposals.
SHN considers that if the Government should conclude that there are no alternatives, the European Commission should be consulted on whether there are “imperative reasons of overriding public interest” for the Plan to proceed.

FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, SNH RE-ITERATES ITS TOTAL OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH OF HARLOW