Press Releases

Today the Government has announced a further 8 week public consultation on the East of England Plan to see if their catch up work on the EU Habitats directive meets the grade.

'STOP Harlow North will be launching a campaign to generate a substantial response to this consultation via our website and using pre-printed postcards.

The work GO-East has done is woefully inadequate, late and has not followed the sequential tests required. The water cycle study requested by the independent Inspector in Feb 2006 has not even been started' stated Nigel Clark Secretary STOP Harlow North

In our response to the last public consultation we, and others, pointed out that the Habitats Directive Report accompanying the Plan was not 'fit for purpose'; an Appropriate Assessment of the 'likely significant impacts' on nationally important wildlife sites should have been prepared.

The Government can adopt the plan only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the sites concerned, (in our case the Lee valley and, we believe, the Meads along the Stort valley), and having obtained the opinion of the general public.

'We need the general public to tell the Government that their plans to overdevelop Harlow and Hertfordshire will be extremely damaging to the environment. We will publish details of how to respond in the near future' continued Mr Clark

'From all the available evidence, it is inevitable that the Harlow North development would have 'likely significant effects' on the Lee Valley sites. The Government now needs to go back to the drawing board and look at alternatives to the northwards expansion of Harlow' concluded Mr Clark

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North

23 October 2007

Notes to Editors:

The draft East of England Plan was published in December 2004 and was subjected to an Examination in Public from November 2005 to March 2006. Following the issue of the Panel Report, in June 2006 which rejected Harlow North, Proposed Changes to the Plan were published for public comment in December 2006. The Proposed Changes reinstated the expansion of Harlow to the north into the Plan
In February 2007, STOP Harlow North engaged a planning consultant to assist the organisation in compiling its response to the Proposed Changes document. The consultant produced a report which concluded that the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Plan was not 'fit for purpose'.
As a result of these and other similar representations, the Government decided not to proceed with the formal approval of the Plan. Instead, the Government Office for the East of England decided in June 2007 to appoint consultants to carry out an investigation of the environmental implications of the Proposed Changes as required by Article 6 of the European Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Final approval of the East of England Plan was postponed until the 'autumn' of 2007, pending the completion of the consultants work
The process for carrying out an Appropriate Assessment is set out in Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive. This is elaborated in August 2006 draft guidelines. This describes a four stage process, as follows:

Stage 1: Screening

Determining whether the plan 'in combination' with other plans and projects is likely to have an adverse effect on a European site

Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment

Determining whether, in view of the site's conservation objectives, the plan 'in combination' with other plans and projects would have an adverse effect (or risk of this - on the integrity of site(s). If it does not, the plan can proceed.

Stage 3: Assessment of Alternative Solutions

Where the plan is assessed as having an adverse effect (or risk of this) on the integrity of the site(s), there should be an examination of alternatives.

Stage 4: Assessment where no alternatives solutions remain and where adverse impacts remain

Apply a test of 'imperative reasons of public interest' (IROPI) only where there is no scope for alternatives.
The key reference point for the issues is Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. In particular, Articles 6 (3) and 6(4) set out a series of procedural and substantive safeguards for plans and projects likely to have a significant effect on Natura 2000 sites. There is a close relationship between the provisions of the Habitats Directive and Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. Indeed, Special Protection Areas (SPA's), designated under the latter, are all part of the Natura 2000 network of sites. There is a responsibility on all EU Member States to abstain from all activities that may cause a site on the national network of sites to deteriorate.
Article 6 (3) of the Directorate requires an appropriate assessment to be carried out where there is likely to be a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. In the SHN response to the Proposed Changes, it was argued that this was the case, especially in the relationship between proposed developments to the north of Harlow and Natura 2000 sites in the Lee Valley. Together with other representations, the SHN view contributed to the Government's decision to re-visit the SEA work and to investigate whether an appropriate assessment would be necessary under the terms of the Habitats Directive.
The only SPA/Ramsar sites in Hertfordshire are a series of three sites which form part of the Lee Valley area. These are described as 'predominantly water bodies with bogs, fens, grassland and deciduous woodland'. Two parts of this Lee Valley site lie within Hertfordshire, whilst one straddles the county border with Essex.
It should be emphasised that the provisions of the EU Directive target developments such as Harlow North situated outside a site, such as the Lee Valley, but likely to have a significant effect on it. It is stressed that it is not absolute certainty which is required, rather a likelihood of significant effects, which triggers the assessment.
The Lee Valley sites are outside the Harlow growth area and the 5Km buffer zone drawn around it. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that any future development to the north of these sites would have an impact on them. This is only partially recognised in the rather brief analysis, despite the conclusions in the Panel Report and the clear evidence given at the Examination in Public about the indirect effects of development in the Harlow area. These include recreational pressures and the need to expand Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works, a concern which was also elaborated in the Halcrow report on Wastewater Infrastructure, published by EERA in December 2006. Rye Meads is adjacent to an important part of the SPA/Ramsar site, also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
The Habitats Directive contains clear advice on what the competent authorities should do when the report has been completed. It states that 'the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned, and, if appropriate, having obtained the opinion of the general public.'

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

Plan delayed until autumn.

The Government Office for the East of England announced this week that it is commissioning further work to assess the East of England Plan against the requirements of the European Habitats Directive. This decision is in response to representations during the public consultation earlier this year from the Regional Assembly, Natural England, STOP Harlow North and others.

All of this means that the final Plan will not now be published before the autumn at the earliest

"This decision vindicates our own consultant's report which concluded that the Habitats Directive Report is not fit for purpose. We believe there are fundamental flaws in the Plan" said Nigel Clark, Secretary STOP Harlow North

"However it would appear that the Government expects local authorities to stick to their original timetables and to progress development plans without knowing if the Plan itself in sustainable or complies with EU directives. The regional planning process is now in a complete mess"

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North

June 14th 2007

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

Campaign asks Freedom of Information Commissioner to lift veil of secrecy.

The Government has broken its own rules on releasing information to the public and STOP Harlow North has called on the Information Commissioner to step in.

Having refused to release all the details of a meeting last July between Bill Rammell, MP and Yvette Cooper, Housing Minister, the Government has now failed to meet its own deadline to review the case.

"We appealed in January and the review should have been complete in 6 weeks. 16 weeks later we are no further forward. What are they trying to hide?" argued Nigel Clark, Secretary STOP Harlow North

The meeting between the Ministers, we were told, was to discuss infrastructure and housing but it was held after the independent Inspector had published his report into the East of England Plan when such meetings were prohibited under planning rules.

"Mr Rammell denies he discussed housing around Harlow or made representations . The Government has said we cannot see the papers because Yvette Cooper, Housing Minister, was developing policy. This does not make sense. Exactly what infrastructure and housing policy was the Housing Minister and the MP for Harlow discussing? We need the papers to be released to clear up all the uncertainty about this meeting and lift the veil of secrecy." said Mr Clark

Last summer Bill Rammell and the group leaders on Harlow Council said they "committed to build an alternative case to put to the Government". The planning process, PPS11, specifically prohibited any further representations on the Inspectors report.

In December the Government ignored the independent Inspector's report and reinstated massive housing growth north of Harlow in the final consultation. The final Plan is expected to be published this summer

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North

June 11th 2007

Notes to Editors:

A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration
To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted
To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages
To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

2. The East of England Plan.

The Plan is the document that sets out the strategy to guide planning and development in the East of England to the year 2021. The Plan encompasses economic development, housing, the environment, transport, waste management, culture, sport and recreation, mineral extraction and more. Its geographical spread covers Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex , Hertfordshire, Luton , Norfolk , Peterborough , Suffolk , Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock .

3. The Secretary of State appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson is the Chair and Roy Foster is the Inspector Member. The Panel issued its report in June 2006 and recommended removal of 10,000 houses north of Harlow .

Bill Rammell, MP, met with Yvette Cooper, Minister for Housing on 13th July 2006

The Proposed Changes to the East of England Plan were published on 19th December 2006 and included proposals to build up to 20,000 houses north of Harlow .

4. Planning Policy Statement 11 clearly states:

"Stage 5 - The Panel Report

2.50 The report of the Panel into the EiP will normally be completed within two months of the end of the examination, although this will depend on its length and complexity. The RPB and other interested parties should not make representations on the report except in the context of the Secretary of State's proposed changes to the draft revision. To do so would undermine the examination process and be prejudicial to other participants. The Panel report will be published as soon as practicable after the Secretary of State receives it and in advance of the proposed changes."

PPS11 also states

"54. When publishing the proposed changes, the Secretary of State may indicate policies where advice from the RPB and other participants would be particularly welcome. ???... Publicly available minutes of such meetings or notes of the outcomes of other contacts will be kept. Where there has been such selective contact and depending on its nature and outcome, a further consultation period may be necessary in order to give others an opportunity to comment. The above-mentioned notes and minutes will be made available as part of this process."

5. On 27th January 2007 STOP Harlow North appealed against GO-East's refusal to release details relating to the meeting between the Minister for Housing & Planning and the Member of Parliament for Harlow to discuss housing and infrastructure issues on 13th July 2006 .

This information was first requested in mid Nov 2006; more than 6 months ago

The guideline for internal reviews state:

"Internal reviews have to be completed in a reasonable timescale. As a matter of best practice it is recommended that:

· Simple considerations should aim to be dealt with within 2-3 weeks of receiving the complaint.
· Complex reviews - in particular where it is necessary to reconsider the public interest test - should aim to be dealt with within 6 weeks of receiving the complaint."

Six weeks from January 27th 2007 expired on 10th March 2007

On March 16th 2007 SHN was told that DCLG hoped "to have a response for you by the end of next week"

On 12th April SHN was told that "your internal review is nearing completion"

No information has been forthcoming.

6. STOP Harlow North appealed to the Information Commissioner on May 28th 2007

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

STOP Harlow North get funding boost

Today Stop Harlow North received a £1,000 boost to its campaign funds from Lush. This welcome boost will be put towards technical work needed to build a legal case against the draft East of England Plan

As a company, Lush believes in supporting small, grassroots groups that can make a real difference but often struggle for funding. They do not limit their support to registered charities, choosing instead to focus on helping a handpicked selection of non-violent direct action groups and other worthy causes.
"We are incredibly pleased to have been recognised for making a real difference through the campaign" said a Nigel Clark, Secretary STOP Harlow North. "We rely on small contributions from a large number of people but a big cheque like this sometimes really helps."

In April this year Lush launched a new hand and body lotion, the Charity Pot, every single penny from the sales of the Charity Pot, minus the VAT, goes into the Charity Pot Fund to be donated to groups such as STOP Harlow North.

Lush has in the past donated to Stop Stansted Expansion, The Prince's Trust and the Dorset Wildlife Trust amongst many other groups

Issued by
Mike Newman
Deputy Secretary STOP Harlow North
April 30th 2007

A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration
To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted
To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages
To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

2. Details of Lush and its work can be found here:
http://www.lush.co.uk/lushlife/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

Essex County Council working on robust planning solution

We have been asked by Essex County Council following our recent newsletter "Essex County Council calls for an explanation for reinserting Harlow North in the Plan" to point out that far from isolating Harlow and Epping Forest District Councils, the County Council is working with them and indeed both District Councils share many of the concerns identified by the County Council.

The County Council is very concerned to ensure that the final plan is both robust and sound in terms of its proposals for growth in Harlow. It has made it absolutely clear what the Secretary of State must consider in finalising her proposals for the Harlow area and the supporting infrastructure necessary to deliver such proposals.

However, Essex County Council has made no specific reference to support for or opposition to Harlow North as the exact distribution and employment will be dealt with by the production of joint or coordinated Local Development Documents across the three districts concerned.

We welcome ECC's robust work to ensure a sound planning solution and hope this clarifies matters

Issued by
Mike Newman, Deputy Secretary STOP Harlow North
19th April 2007
www.stopharlownorth.com

Notes to Editors:

A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration
To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted
To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages
To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

2. The Secretary of State appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson was the Chair and Roy Foster was the Inspector Member. The Panel issued its report in June 2006 and recommended removal of 10,000 house north of Harlow

3. The Essex County Council response was agreed at cabinet on March 6th - report reference CAB/015/07.

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

Harlow North might be the largest single concentration of urban growth in England.

Ropemaker Properties have shown their true colours in their response to the East of England Plan. Despite Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State suggesting development to the north should wait until the regeneration of Harlow is underway Ropemaker's are intent on starting immediately without any new road or sewage treatment infrastructure.

They state in their submission to GO-East
'Ropemaker does not accept that it will be necessary to wait until the later part of the current plan period for any significant delivery to the north of the existing town. Ropemaker considers that it would be possible to make a start on at least a first phase of development up to 3500, and maybe up to 5000 homes, without the need for major new infrastructure or utilities'.

Their submission on transport policy once again shows their lack of commitment to fund any form of bypass by asking for a transport review which does 'not rely on major new strategic road building'

Ropemakers also want Harlow to double in size something to which, even Harlow Council, is opposed. They state:

'Ropemaker Properties Limited considers that in order to establish the town as a sustainable regional centre development, doubling the size of existing Harlow will be necessary.'

To cap it all they want all the decisions on this major project taken away from locally elected politicians. They state:
'District Councils are unlikely to be able to manage what Ropemaker believes could become the largest single concentration of urban growth in England, at least in relation to the size of the existing settlement. The impact of this growth is tantamount to remaking the town. Historically, undertakings of this scale and ambition have been resourced by LDVs with access to significant resources and the capacity to attract and retain highly qualified professional staffs over a prolonged period, through Urban Development Corporations (UDC) or, more particularly New Town Development Corporations (NTDC)'.

Nigel Clark, Secretary STOP Harlow North commented:

'Ropemakers, or the BP pension fund to be more precise, are making a play for the massive expansion of Harlow from which they will profit enormously. They want to do it on the cheap with no infrastructure and no democratic input. They care nothing for local communities in East Herts or Harlow. The independent Inspector clearly stated that building to the north of Harlow ran the risk of competing with the regeneration of existing town.'

Issued by
Nigel Clark
25th March 2007
Secretary STOP Harlow North
www.stopharlownorth.com

Notes to Editors:

A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration
To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted
To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages
To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

2. Ropemaker Property's submission to the public consultation on the proposed changes to the East of England plan is published on their website http://www.harlownorth.com/. Extracts above are from their representations on Policy HA1- Harlow, Policy IMP1- Implementation and Policy T6- Transport

3. The Secretary of State appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson was the Chair and Roy Foster was the Inspector Member. The Panel issued its report in June 2006 and recommended removal of 10,000 house north of Harlow

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

Essex County Council calls for an explanation for reinserting Harlow North in the Plan

Essex County Council has left Harlow and Epping Forest Councils out in the cold by deploring the proposals for Harlow in the East of England Plan.

Essex County Council also questions the proposed jobs that Stansted airport would generate at Harlow to support the massive housing expansion.

The Council has emphatically stated that an east-west road link to the M11 must come before any major growth and deplores the Government's lack of commitment to fund transport improvements.

They also express strong doubts that the proposed scale of new housing growth in the Harlow area can realistically be delivered and describe the proposed approach to a Green Belt review in the Harlow area as unacceptable and prejudicial

They conclude that proposals for major growth in the Harlow area should not be progressed any further until the necessary technical studies have been completed and state: "If the Secretary of State is minded to support the proposals, she would need to provide a robust explanation and justification to support her decision"

Nigel Clark, Secretary STOP Harlow North, commented:

"Essex County Council has come along way from describing Harlow North as "the least worst option". I think they have recognised, like the independent Inspector, that the proposals are fundamentally flawed. Harlow and Epping Forest Council are looking increasing isolated in their support for growth north of Harlow"

END

Issued by
Nigel Clark
25th March 2007
Secretary STOP Harlow North
www.stopharlownorth.com

Notes to Editors:

STOP Harlow North is dedicated to positively and actively opposing proposals by Ropemaker Properties Limited and its associated landowners to create a major development north of Harlow around the Hertfordshire villages of Eastwick, Gilston, High Wych, Hunsdon and Widford, and the town of Sawbridgeworth, on the basis that the locality needs:

A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration
To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted
To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages
To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

The Secretary of State appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson was the Chair and Roy Foster was the Inspector Member. The Panel issued its report in June 2006 and recommended removal of 10,000 house north of Harlow
The Essex County Council response was agreed at cabinet on March 6th ? report reference CAB/015/07. Selected extracts are attached with bolding for emphasis.

A. Continued concern about the proposed scale of new housing and jobs growth

Jobs growth

2. The job growth increases specifically being proposed in respect of Stansted Airport should be deleted. The County Council is strongly opposed to the construction of a new second runway at Stansted Airport. Accordingly the proposal to increase the Essex jobs target to reflect the implementation of this project is unacceptable. In any event, even if the project were to go ahead, an estimate of 11,000 extra jobs is a gross exaggeration. Moreover, the proposal to add an extra net 10,000 jobs at Harlow is also questioned. This is unlikely given the lower levels of indirect employment likely to be generated by Stansted, and the probability that some of this indirect employment will be located in other towns (such as Bishop?s Stortford, Braintree, and Chelmsford).

D. Robustness of the Harlow proposals

4. Existing and committed transport measures and infrastructure in the Harlow area could not cope with this scale of major housing growth. This includes internal arrangements within the built-up area of the town itself, and the inter-urban strategic links from the town to other major urban centres. Concerning the latter, recent transport assessments for the West Anglia line and for strategic highway routes (M25, M11, A414) confirm current capacity problems. The final Plan should contain constructive proposals to address these transport issues by bringing forward appropriate schemes for the delivery of transport infrastructure and other transport measures, including the improvement of public transport.

5. In particular, the early provision of an improved A414 east-west route to the north of the town linking to the M11 is considered to be vital as a precursor to economic regeneration and improved access to employment areas, housing growth in the Harlow area, and a sustainable town-wide transport strategy. The government should give a strong policy commitment to the provision of this A414 transport improvement in the final Plan. Because of the long lead-in timescales associated with such infrastructure, it is considered that route options assessment, project planning, design, and land acquisition negotiations should start as soon as possible to minimise delay.

6. The lack of government commitment to fund transport measures and infrastructure improvements in paragraph 13.72 of the Proposed Changes is deplored. This paragraph states that "The regional priorities agreed through the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) process suggest that interventions in the early and middle years of the plan period would need to focus on management of existing infrastructure and more modest infrastructure investment". Moreover, little support is offered to the funding of a Harlow outer bypass; this will have to rely on other funding sources or a reordering of priorities in the RFA. It is considered that the forthcoming 2007 Spending Review should identify the appropriate funding to support strategic highway and public transport improvements in the Harlow area as these are so fundamental to providing a structure for the future growth of the town.

7. Whatever the outcome of the further study of wastewater (sewerage) infrastructure serving Harlow ? upgrades, major expansion, new works, new sewers, flood management measures ? significant investment will be required as a high priority and for the earliest possible delivery.

8. There are strong doubts that the proposed scale of new housing growth in the Harlow area (16,000 new homes 2001-2021) can realistically be delivered within the proposed timescale up to 2021 given the need for further technical studies (transport and water resources), preparation of development plans, master plans, land assembly, and the lead-in time for supporting infrastructure delivery. Because of the inter-dependencies involved with these matters, at least some conditionality should be expressed in policy towards further growth in the Harlow area (i.e., major housing, strategic employment sites, retail provision). For example, new development should be phased in relation to the achievement of key milestones in the delivery of essential infrastructure, public services, and the satisfactory alignment between new housing and job growth.

9. Proposals for major growth in the Harlow area should not be progressed any further as part of the Plan until the necessary technical studies have been completed for transport, water supply, and waste water, and their study findings have been properly considered and evaluated in terms of the practical implications for the scale, type, location, and phasing of major development in the area.

10. The proposed approach to Green Belt Review in the Harlow area that looks towards 2031 and beyond is unacceptable. It is not justified by adequate technical analysis and SEA/SA or appropriate assessment. There is no regard to the stated purposes of the Metropolitan Green Belt and the justification presented for exceptionally removing land from the Green Belt is inadequate. It is also prejudicial to the outcome of the next RSS Review of the East of England Plan.

11. The reinsertion of the North Harlow proposals into the Proposed Changes is noted, even though the proposals were rejected by the EIP Panel in their report which recommended their deletion from the Draft Plan. The Panel's principal reasons are set out in paragraph 5.94 of their report. The Panel's had reservations about the provision of infrastructure to support such major growth, landscape and other environmental objections, and about whether the dynamism of a relatively self-contained new settlement could be made to support the functioning and regeneration of Harlow. There are also concerns not fully evaluated in the EiP Panel Report about the impact of aircraft noise intrusion upon North Harlow as a result of overflying from Stansted Airport. The Secretary of State should give very careful consideration to these reservations, before making a decision about the North Harlow proposals in the final Plan. If the Secretary of State is minded to support the proposals, she would need to provide a robust explanation and justification to support her decision.

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

5,000 local residents object to Harlow North development

Stop Harlow North, the local residents group campaigning to halt the development of 25,000 homes by Ropemaker Properties (part of BP’s pension fund), have estimated that over 5,000 individual objections have today been submitted to GO-EAST as part of the consultation on the East of England Development Plan.

Speaking on behalf of Stop Harlow North, Nigel Clark today commented:

“We are greatly encouraged by the outpouring of support for the campaign to halt this unsustainable and ill thought through development.

“Thousands of local residents are expressing their concern over:

The way the independent inspector’s recommendations were rejected;

The lack of infrastructure for road, rail, water and sewage treatment;

The destruction of vast areas of green belt land;

And the damage the proposal will have on the long term regeneration of Harlow.

We don’t see the Government paying the £1 billion infrastructure bill to deliver this scheme, and these costs will undoubtedly be passed on to local taxpayers and local industry.

This development is neither sustainable nor deliverable, and will not address local housing need. The government needs to go back to the drawing board.”

Ends.

Issued by
Nigel Clark,
Secretary STOP Harlow North.

9th March

Notes to Editors.

1. Over 2,500 local people have made representations against the Ropemaker Properties development via the Stop Harlow North website (see www.stopharlownorth.com).

2. Nearly 1,000 representation collected locally by supporters and submitted to the Government office for the East of England.

3. Its estimated locally that more than another 2,000 individual submissions using Stop Harlow North postcards and newspaper coupons have been made.

4. The last submissions will be delivered by hand by 5pm today by Mike Newman, senior representative of Stop Harlow North to GO-East at their offices in Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

East Herts pulls its weight in house building

Who is pulling their weight in house building?

Over the past few weeks we have shown why the housing proposed for Harlow and its surrounding districts is both unsustainable and unnecessary.

However Mr Rammell, MP for Harlow, has asserted in the past that East Herts needs to "pull it's weight" in terms of house building, implying housing building in East Herts has lagged Harlow in some way.

Mr Rammell could not be more mistaken. Over the last 20 years, the last 10 years and the last 5 years East Herts has built more homes per year than any other neighbouring local authority.

East Herts has also built more homes per head of population, providing affordable homes for many first time buyers.

Since 2001 Harlow has only built 810 houses, Epping Forest only 1,220 but East Herts has already built 2,140 houses; more than both combined

"It is Harlow Council that has been letting down its young people by failing to renew its housing stock and failing to provide enough affordable homes for the next generation of Harlow residents. However we are not advocating dumping houses in Harlow, the current local plan makes adequate provison. Harlow Council needs to accelerate provison with it own boundaries according to its own local plan.We want a "better not a bigger" Harlow," said Nigel Clark Secretary STOP Harlow North.

Epping Forest has been building homes at only half the rate of East Herts over the last 20 years and now has some of the most expensive housing in the UK. Epping Forest is trying to reduce even further is small allocation of homes in the East of England Plan.

"There are currently 3,700 people of Epping Forest's housing waiting list yet they are reluctant to build even 3,500 houses up to 2021. Young people in Epping Forest will be waiting a long time for a home. The Council seems to have lost touch with reality" concluded Mr Clark

East Herts is certainly pulling its weight in building new homes. Will Harlow and Epping Forest do the same?

The independent Panel recommended removal of all plans to build north of Harlow. Ruth Kelly's Proposed Changes to the Plan, which ignore this recommendation and include damaging proposals to build up to 20,000 houses north of Harlow, are out for consultation until 9th March. Please respond

You can:
· Complete the form of our website. http://www.stopharlownorth.com/
· Sign one of our petitions that are in local shops and pubs
· Return one of the thousands of postcard leaflets we will be distributing
· Write directly to
Regional Planning Team, GO-East,
Eastbrook,
Shaftesbury Road,
Cambridge
CB2 8DF,

Responses to be received no later than 5pm on 9 March 2007

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
www.stopharlownorth.com

Notes to Editors:

1. STOP Harlow North is dedicated to positively and actively opposing proposals by Ropemaker Properties Limited and its associated landowners to create a major development north of Harlow around the Hertfordshire villages of Eastwick, Gilston, High Wych, Hunsdon and Widford, and the town of Sawbridgeworth, on the basis that the locality needs:
· A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration
· To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted.
· To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages
· To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

2. Proposed Changes housing allocations

Authority/area	Original Plan	Ruth Kelly's proposal	% already built	Still to build
Epping Forest	11,000	3,500	34.86%	2,280
Harlow*	8,000	16,000	5.06%	15,190
East Hertfordshire	20,800**	12,000	17.83%	9,860

*Harlow allocation includes urban extension into East Herts and Epping Forest

** Including 10,000 north of Harlow rejected by the independent Panel

3. House building in Harlow area
As reported in the Buchanan's study for the ODPM

Historic housebuilding completions by Local Authority - house built per year

Local Authority Average historic completions per annum as at 2002/03

	last 5yrs	last 10yrs	last 20yrs
East Herts	403	573	600
Harlow	336	412	290
Epping Forest	304	338	328
Uttlesford	251	260	259
Broxbourne	348	320	352

East Herts has highest completions in all time periods

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

Land to the north of Harlow - Actively Managed Countryside

Over the last few weeks we have explained why building to the north of Harlow is unsustainable and unnecessary. The local communities do actually have their own vision for the land as actively managed countryside.

The independent Panel's reasons for rejecting building thousands of houses north of Harlow were comprehensive, including the high quality environment that would be destroyed, the lack of infrastructure and a rejection of the notion that such development would aid the regeneration of Harlow.

"Our Gilston Great Park report sets out an exciting prospect for the area as "actively managed countryside" which could meet both Ropemakers financial needs and the communities' aspirations. It provides a viable alternative to unsustainable housing development." stated Nigel Clark Secretary of STOP Harlow North, the publishers of the report.

"I have long held the view that this beautiful countryside needs protecting for the long term. It is a green lung, not just for local people, but for the region as a whole. The idea therefore of creating Gilston Great Park is one which deserves the most serious consideration. If successful it would mean we could hand on something of incalculable benefit to the generations who come after us." added Mark Prisk MP, Hertford & Stortford

The report has also been warmly welcomed by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and Friends of the Earth.

"The Gilston Great Park proposal is a ground breaking piece of work that deserves support from all those that care about both the environment of Essex and Hertfordshire as a whole and Harlow in particular and the quality of life of people who live and work in the area.
It is a prime example of working with nature for the benefit of all, preserving and enhancing the best while promoting improvements, like extended woodlands, and small scale development appropriate to the area.
It is reminiscent of the care and long term planning that went into the development of the great country estates of England but with the added bonus of public involvement in the planning and execution and enjoyment of the fruits of their labour."

Mary Edwards, Friends of the Earth Regional Campaigns Co-coordinator, East of England

"CPRE Hertfordshire is pleased to add its support to the proposal for Gilston Great Park. We especially welcome the policy to retain viable agriculture as the predominant land-use in the park, and endorse the aim to increase woodland cover form 6% to over 25% thus generating a significant carbon sink locally. There is increasing evidence that regular visits to the countryside can enhance mental well-being and counter the stresses of modern urban living. Public accessibility will be central to these proposals and will enhance Harlow's attractiveness and its regeneration as a place to live and work. Gilston Great Park could become a model for countryside management in urban fringe locations."

Kevin Fitzgerald, Hon. Director, CPRE - The Hertfordshire Society.

Professor David Lock, Chair of Town and County Planning Association responded to our proposals for Gilston Great Park saying amongst other things "Harlow is a most carefully designed town in a splendid setting. Its further extension needs serious local debate. "What happens when Harlow is full up" however is a question that none of us should duck" and "If a town is full up, another must be expanded or a new one started". He concluded "Your document is very clear and professional, and must command serious attention at the local level".

East Herts Council also has confirmed that the principles and approach of Gilston Great Park are consistent with the current planning policies both in the existing Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan and with policies pertaining to the Green Belt and landscape character assessments. We are hoping to work in partnership with the Council to explore how discussions about Gilston Great Park can be progressed.

If you support the idea of Gilston Great Park please respond to the public consultation on the draft East of England Plan

Ruth Kelly's Proposed Changes to the Plan, which include damaging proposals to build up to 20,000 houses north of Harlow, are out for consultation until 9th March. Please respond

Responses to be received no later than 5pm on 9 March 2007

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
www.stopharlownorth.com

Notes to Editors:

2. The Panel report into the draft East of England Plan stated :
"5.95 We therefore conclude that the strategy should refocus on the opportunities within Harlow and other directions of growth to the east, south and west of the town, reflecting the conclusions of the Growth Area Study (SRS10 paragraph 11.6.21) and the proposals originally contained in the "banked draft" RPG14. Although this also means a reduction in the overall housing provision allocated to this part of the sub-region, we do not consider it should impair the achievement of an early gain in housing output. On the contrary, we would see a strategy concentrating on a number of directions for growth, while avoiding the distractions of planning for major "satellite" settlements as capable of producing early progress in development and securing gains for regeneration within the town"

3. The 23 page report has been distributed to councillors in East Herts, Harlow, Epping Forest, Hertfordshire and Essex along with a number of Government Agencies, business groups and infrastructure providers. Over 200 copies have been distributed.

4. The full report is available for download in pdf format on http://www.stopharlownorth.com/GGP.htm

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

A year ago SHN won the argument at the EiP

A year ago STOP Harlow North went to the Examination in Public confident in their arguments that proposals for Harlow North were flawed.

We had great public support in the gallery.

For two and a half days we put our case with East Herts Council and Hertfordshire County Council. We had great support from CPRE and Friends of the Earth. Together we countered every point put by Ropemakers, Harlow Council, Epping Forest Council and Essex County Council.

As we left a developer turned to us and said "You've won". He was right. The independent Panel threw out development north of Harlow.

Most significantly the Panel wrote "The proposed strategy, in relying on "satellite" settlements rather than urban extensions integrated with the town, runs the risk that these will function as rival attractions in terms of the housing market and economic activity."

On Dec 19th the Government undermined the whole planning process, the public consultation and Examination in Public by rejecting the Panel's recommendation. They wasted over £1million pounds of taxpayers' money and destroyed many people's faith in democracy.

"On the anniversary of winning our battle at the EiP we fight on. There is still everything to play for" said Nigel Clark, secretary STOP Harlow North

Ruth Kelly's Proposed Changes to the Plan, which include damaging proposals to build up to 20,000 houses north of Harlow, are out for consultation until 9th March. Please respond

Responses to be received no later than 5pm on 9 March 2007

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
www.stopharlownorth.com

Notes to Editors:

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

Government's own figures show houses planned for East Herts and Harlow are excessive.

Over the last few week we have shown how Harlow's growth is unsustainable. This week we show why the number of houses is unnecessary.

The detailed district housing need projections released by the Government confirm the deep flaws in the allocation of housing around Harlow.

The projections suggest that 11,000 new homes are necessary in East Herts; a number that is in line with the council's own assessment of need and the number proposed without any northern expansion of Harlow.

Harlow only needs 4,000 homes according to these projections. Harlow's current local plan will meet the predicted household growth. So Harlow doesn't need Harlow North either!

Despite what others might say we have never argued for more houses to be dumped in Harlow. We want a "better nor bigger Harlow". It is Mr Rammell's Government who want to dump an excessive number of homes in the area.

One might legitimately ask why Epping Forest wants to build so few homes when the projections show 8,000 are required.

"It is clear that the Proposed Changes to the East of England Plan are not based on local need or any rational forecasts. There has obviously been a high level political decision at GO-East to try to dump unsustainable and unnecessary housing number in East Herts and around Harlow" said Nigel Clark Secretary STOP Harlow North.

He continued "It is time for the Government, BP and others to stop using the argument that this number of homes is needed for our young people; the Government?s own forecasts don't support it. The studies of employment growth also show the number of people seeking work will massively exceed the number of jobs available locally. Building the number of homes around Harlow suggested by the draft East of England Plan is a recipe for disaster."

Ruth Kelly's Proposed Changes to the Plan, which include damaging proposals to build up to 20,000 houses north of Harlow, are out for consultation until 9th March. Please respond

Responses to be received no later than 5pm on 9 March 2007

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
www.stopharlownorth.com

Notes to Editors:

The Government?s household projections at sub regional level are shown below at county level with district level breakdown for Essex and Hertfordshire.
The household projections at sub regional level are in Table F here on side menu of this web page

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1002882&PressNoticeID=2097

Bedfordshire has been excluded from the Table below because of the complications of reconciling number with the Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy.

Increase in households forecast by ODPM 2003-2021 (x1000)
EAST	511
Cambridgeshire	78
Essex	142
Basildon	10
Braintree	20
Brentwood	2
Castle Point	5
Chelmsford	10
Colchester	15
*Epping Forest*	8
*Harlow*	4
Maldon	7
Rochford	7
Tendring	20
Uttlesford	6
Southend-on-Sea UA	12
Thurrock UA	16
Hertfordshire	78
Broxbourne	8
Dacorum	6
*East Hertfordshire*	11
Hertsmere	7
North Hertfordshire	13
St. Albans	11
Stevenage	6
Three Rivers	7
Watford	5
Welwyn Hatfield	6
Norfolk	88
Suffolk	71

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************

East Of England Plan would bring more workers than jobs

The Proposed Changes to draft East of England Plan would massively unbalance the alignment between workers and available jobs around Harlow. In the Stansted/M11 Corridor there will be far more workers than jobs; leading to dormitory housing estates devoid of activity during the day as people commute vast distances for work or mass unemployment in Harlow. This is not the way to build sustainable communities.
The alignment study showed an additional 17,600 more workers than jobs by 2021 should the draft Plan go ahead.
There will be more of a reliance on jobs being provided in London. This will both increase congestion and commuting.

Commenting on the imbalance Nigel Clark, Secretary of STOP Harlow North stated. "The provision of even more housing around Harlow seems very foolhardy. We will end up creating a dormitory town in the Green belt; that cannot be sustainable"
The Government's Proposed Changes suggest Harlow might take jobs from an expanded Stansted airport but most local politicians including Bill Rammell, who is a Government minister, are opposed to such an expansion. "This is another example of the lack of joined up thinking by Bill Rammell" said Mr. Clark
PACEC's survey of Harlow employers indicates that not only was poor local image considered to be a hindrance to business growth in Harlow, it was also the most important factor in attracting and retaining businesses.
The Local Plan identifies a significant stock of vacant/under-utilised employment sites and premises in Harlow. These are poorly located relative to the strategic transport network, requiring access via Harlow's congested road network, and as such are unattractive to potential inward investors. The Plan does nothing to address these problems
There is a need to focus on regenerating the existing town and to bring business back to brownfield sites that are lying empty and derelict. "We need a joined up plan for Harlow which will actually regenerate the existing town without the distraction of massive growth" concluded Mr. Clark
Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
Notes for editors
1. STOP Harlow North is dedicated to positively and actively opposing proposals by Ropemaker Properties Limited and its associated landowners to create a major development north of Harlow around the Hertfordshire villages of Eastwick, Gilston, High Wych, Hunsdon and Widford, and the town of Sawbridgeworth, on the basis that the locality needs:
· A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration
· To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted.
· To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages
· To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

2. Extracts from Regional Technical Advisors Group meeting papers
The Housing and Employment Alignment Update Study, commissioned by the East of England Regional Assembly
A minus figure in the table represents more workers than jobs (hence net out-commuting), whilst a plus figure represents more jobs than workers (hence net in-commuting)

Table 2.1: Net balance of jobs and workers

Jobs minus workers

	2001 base (revised)	Alignment Study (04)	Alignment Study(05)	Difference (04) to (05)	Overall Change 01-21 in net balance
Thames Gateway South Essex	-44,600	-23,800	-9,400	+14,400	+35,200
Haven Gateway	-11,000	-6,500	-600	+5,900	+10,400
Stansted/M11 Corridor	-47,000	-50,000	-63,600	-13,600	-17,600
Rest of Essex	-14,200	-9,300	-11,300	-2,000	+2,900
Rest of Hertfordshire	+29,000	+34,300	+35,700	+1,400	+6,700
Luton-Dunstable-Houghton Regis	-11,300	-17,400	-20,000	-2,600	-8,700
Bedford Kempston	-21,800	-9,400	-4,200	+5,200	+17,600
Greater Peterborough	+17,700	+7,600	+14,400	+6,800	-3,300
Rest of Suffolk	-4,900	-3600	-6,700	-3,100	-1,800
Norwich Sub-region	-11,300	-13,400	-5,000	+8,400	+6,300
Rest of Norfolk	-19,000	-13,200	-9,700	+3,500	+9,300
Great Yarmouth/Lowestoft	-5,900	-2,100	-4,400	-2,300	+1,500
Cambridge sub-region	-5,000	+8,600	+1,400	-6,200	+6,400
Region	-149,000	-99,000	-83,500