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:

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	+15,500	+65,500

Moving away from alignment by increases in worker surpluses:
Stansted/M11 ? a major increase
Luton-Dunstable-Houghton Regis ? a major increase
Rest of Suffolk ? a minor increase

[Return to top of page]

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

Who will pay the £1 billion needed to regenerate Harlow?

Over the last two weeks STOP Harlow North has highlighted the fundamental planning flaws in the growth strategy for Harlow specifically sewage treatment, and transport schemes. This week we focus on the overall cost.

"Given historic under investment, many elements (of Harlow) are reaching the end of their lifetime simultaneously and there is a need for significant improvement across the town in the areas of housing, transport and social facilities, as well as town centre revitalisation.
Alongside gradual urban decay, Harlow has suffered a decline in economic fortunes and a rise in social exclusion and deprivation. Combined, these forces provide a potentially self-perpetuating downward trajectory for the future of Harlow and highlight the need for regeneration." Harlow Regeneration Study July 2005.

The Harlow regeneration study stated the overall cost of growth to be of the order of £800 million which STOP Harlow North estimates could reach £1billion with escalating building costs.
The current infrastructure backlog is £350 million, including £83million on repairs to the existing housing stock. This is before any new building.

"With inflation and escalating construction cost the bill for proposed growth strategy for Harlow could easily reach £1billion. This is a massive bill. We all agree we need a better Harlow but who is going to pay and will the money actually be invested. Perhaps a more realistic approach is needed," asks Nigel Clark, Secretary STOP Harlow North

The report goes on to say that developer contributions will form a significant part of the funding package for the regeneration strategy. It is estimated that developer contributions in the region of £200million - £300 million are expected.

"All developer contributions do is raise the price of all the houses, making them unaffordable. The developer is still going to make a profit. If you ask him for £10,000 or £15,000 a house he just adds it to the price. Even then this still leaves the taxpayer, that's you and me, to pick up a bill for up to 70-80% of the cost" said Mr Clark

However, Ropemaker Properties the landowner to the north of Harlow state on their web site that have not committed to fund any specific infrastructure at this time.

The draft East of England Plan contains no specific plans to invest the hundreds of millions of pounds need to make the growth strategy a success.

"I can see the Government pressing on with the houses and failing to secure or provide the large sums of money needed to make the Plan work. Even the Regional Assembly has raised concerns" said Mr Clark
EERA Planning Panel Chair Cllr John Reynolds said: "The region currently has the lowest level of public spending per head of population. The time has come for the Government to reach for its cheque book if new jobs and housing are to be delivered sustainably over the next 15 years."
The Harlow regeneration strategy states "Overall, the stock of housing in Harlow lacks choice, is largely unattractive and, in parts, is approaching the end of its liveability. There is a clear need for housing renewal in many areas, particularly in light of the requirement to meet decent homes standards by 2010."

Surely internal renewal should be the driver to make Harlow better. Unconstrained growth and a £1billion bill for the taxpayer, which is unlikely to be fully funded, will leave Harlow with problems for decades to come.

PLEASE RESPOND TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION BEFORE MARCH 9TH
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. 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. 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.
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.
http://www.go-east.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/
4. The Harlow Regeneration Strategy is available via Harlow Council website: http://www.harlow.gov.uk/content-7100

[Return to top of page]

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

Road and Rail Transport Infrastructure around Harlow

Last week STOP Harlow North highlighted the problems with sewage treatment infrastructure. This week we turn to transport infrastructure; road and rail
The Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan contain no viable solutions to the traffic congestion in and around Harlow while increasing the number of houses to be built over the independent panel recommendations
The original draft Plan included proposals for a Harlow bypass and a High Quality Transport Spine through Harlow and a Park and Ride. All have been specifically deleted from the Plan; none has any funding allocated.
"The group leaders of Harlow Council and Bill Rammell have consistently said that infrastructure has to be delivered before or at the same time as the houses. They obviously have a problem now" said Nigel Clark, secretary STOP Harlow North.
The Government suggest the key objective for Harlow is simply to increase the use of public transport, walking and cycling.
However, Harlow Civic Society chairman and former town MP Stan Newens warned last week that the with the current planned new bus lanes congestion could actually worsen rather than improve.
"I personally believe that putting in a bus lane would not improve the traffic, it would make it more difficult," he said.
Of course Ropemakers have repeatedly asserted that the Plan has never indicated that a bypass is necessary for growth north of Harlow. Ropemakers have not committed to fund any specific infrastructure at this time although they do want to build houses and shops all along the A414 across the floodplain into Harlow to create a "Living Bridge".
"I am not sure how that will relieve congestion at rush hour!" conjectured Mr Clark.
GO-East commissioned studies of the transport road and rail networks in light of the Panel recommendations.
Even at this lower level of housing this road study indicates that the A414 will be operating at nearly 120% of design capacity and the M11 at junction 7 at over 100%. Anything above 80% is a concern.
The report states "Proposed development in this sub-region is expected to cause significant deterioration in travel conditions ... moderate to severe congestion on the A414 around Harlow is expected to remain."
The study also calculates that in an average morning peak hour traffic queues will increase by 68%; a journey that took 30 mins in 2001 will take 50 minutes by 2021.
The assessment of rail capacity presented to the Examination in Public shows in 2001 in the morning peak hours up to 46% of rail passenger hours were "crowded". In 2016 68% of morning trips will be crowded and 75% in 2021.
"Get used to standing on the train; if you can get on one. Nearly twice as many trains will be full. Peak hour journeys into London will not be comfortable" added Mr Clark
"The current level of house building and the lack of investment in transport infrastructure will bring Harlow grinding to a halt. It will be an unattractive place to live or work destroying any prospect for regeneration of the town. It is hard to see how the Government can press on with Harlow North in the face of these reports; such a decision would be perverse." argued 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
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:

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 road study commissioned by GO-East can be found here: http://www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/
The rail study commissioned by GO-East can be found here: http://www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/
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.
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.
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.
http://www.go-east.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/
Key extracts from new policy HA1 Relating to transport are: Policy HA1: Harlow Key Centre for Development and Change

(6) The transport priorities for Harlow are:

achieving a major increase in the use of public transport, walking and cycling

enhancing access between Harlow and London, Stansted and Cambridge,

addressing traffic congestion for movements within and across the town without encouraging an increase in car use; and

measures to support the town's regeneration and growth and improve access to the strategic highway network from key employment sites.

13.71 Resolving traffic congestion and achieving a major increase in the use of public transport, walking and cycling are key objectives. This will require a strong focus on management of Harlow's existing transport infrastructure. However, beyond such management there is a need to address the congestion on the approaches to and within the town through additional or enhanced infrastructure which will support regeneration of the existing town and improve access to main employment areas and new areas of development. Policy T15 identifies the London to Stansted corridor, including Harlow and access to Stansted Airport, as one of the areas likely to come under transport pressure which should be a focus for further work to identify the interventions needed. In regard to Harlow this work, which should be carried out as part of the appraisal of planning and transport options required through Policy H1, should scope the transport issues in a comprehensive way and develop an implementation programme, which complements and supports the development strategy.

13.72 Transport proposals should make effective use of the full range of funding sources. The regional priorities agreed through the Regional Funding Allocation process (Appendix 1) 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. It will be difficult to fund a scheme of the scale of a Harlow by-pass before the last years of the Plan period, unless an innovative mix of funding sources can be brought into play or it was substituted for a project which is currently a higher priority.

[Return to top of page]

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

Rye Meads sewage works will constrain growth

The long awaited study of sewage treatment capacity called for by the independent Inspector at the Examination in Public (EiP) has been published.

The results are damning

The study looked at the reduced level of growth around Harlow recommended by the Panel - without Harlow North. It concluded that, even then, Rye Meads cannot cope without massive investment; investment that is not guaranteed by the Government or OFWAT.

Rye Meads can only accommodate 11,000 additional dwellings. 16,000 houses are planned for Harlow alone. Rye Meads also has to take sewage from building west of Stevenage, the thousands of homes planned for East Herts and new housing in Broxbourne and Welwyn.

The study concludes that further high level strategic studies need to be done and that there is a high risk that the water companies will not be able to build the infrastructure needed in time to deliver the housing growth in a sustainable way.

However, it is not just a matter of timing of the investment as Ruth Kelly claims.The study also questions whether Rye Meads can even be extended as it is located in a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and English Nature would need to grant consent to expand into the reed beds as these are a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Trade effluent from Stansted airport also drains to Rye Meads and the Government has confirmed its intention to build a second runway. The study asks for further investigation of sewage treatment demands from the airport which may restrict housing growth.

"This study confirms the fundamental flaws in the Plan identified by the independent inspector. Why this work was not done by EERA in the early stages of developing the plan is beyond belief. There are still many barriers to delivering even the lower levels of growth recommended by the Panel."

"It is hard to see how the Government can press on with Harlow North in the face of this report; such a decision would be perverse." argued 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

You can:

Complete the form of our website. 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:

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.

East of England Capacity Delivery Strategy, Study: Phase One, Final Report was published in December 2006. The work was undertaken by Halcrow Group Limited, commissioned by the Environment Agency, GO-East and EERA in partnership with Anglian Water and Thames Water.
Electronic copies can be obtained from STOP Harlow North.(secretary@stopharlownorth.com) or downloaded here: http://www.eera.gov.uk/category.asp?cat=641&id=SX137D-A77FBC17
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.
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 house north of Harlow.
The Proposed Changes to the East of England Plan were published on 19th December 2006 and included proposals to build up to 20,00 houses north of Harlow. http://www.go-east.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/

[Return to top of page]

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

Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan

STOP Harlow North is dismayed by the publication of the Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan. The independent Panel's recommendation to remove plans for 10,000 houses north of Harlow has been completely ignored by the Government.

"The value of the whole Examination in Public process has been entirely undermined" said Nigel Clark Secretary STOP Harlow North

Policy HA1 (3) notes that "The review (of the Green Belt) to the north should provide for an eventual development of at least 10,000 dwellings and possibly significantly more"

The Plan is now out for consultation until early March and we will be campaigning for the removal of Harlow North. We do hope the Government will listen properly this time.

We will provide details of how to respond to the consultation very shortly. You will be able to do so via our website. We will also be providing preprinted postcards.

The independent Panel that examined the Plan earlier this year spelt out exactly why Harlow North should be rejected. Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State, has clearly lost the plot. Even Bill Rammell, MP, in our meeting with him last summer indicated the Government would be foolish to ignore the Panel's recommendations.

"We presented a set of well researched and well constructed planning arguments that show why Harlow North would harm the regeneration of the town. The independent Inspector agreed" continued Mr Clark. "The decision by Ruth Kelly is perverse and contradictory. The Sustainability Appraisal says "Future large scale developments north of Harlow may reduce the effectiveness of regeneration and renewal in the existing town centre""

We can only assume that the Government's preferences have overridden the democratic planning process. The only change between the EiP Panel housing recommendations and the Proposed Changes is an extra 2,500 houses at Harlow. Why?

There are serious unresolved issues about water supply and wastewater treatment to serve the strategic development proposed in the Plan. The recent Halcrow report simply confirmed the lack of sewage treatment capacity
The West Anglia railway, although providing important links to London, Stansted and Cambridge, is recognised as being under pressure on capacity
The creation of a northern by-pass relieving the A414 through the town and providing a new access to the M11 was regarded as a prerequisite to accepting development to the north. The road proposal is, however, highly controversial in itself and at this stage is far from guaranteed.
Harlow's growth needed to be of such a form, and carried out in such a way, as to ensure that it is part of the town and does not acquire a separate identity. Harlow North would be a separate town. The nature of the proposals for Harlow North reinforces scepticism about what the development would contribute to the town of Harlow and its regeneration.
The Panel saw the Stort Valley and the floodplain defining the northern boundary to the town.
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.

There are still major infrastructure issues to address within Harlow at any level of growth including a backlog of housing repairs, traffic improvements at junction 7 on the M11 and the capacity at the Rye Meads sewage treatment works.

"A bypass is unplanned and unfunded. The Plan states in Policy HA1 "It will be difficult to fund a scheme of the scale of a Harlow by-pass before the last years of the Plan period". Harlow will grind to a halt if this house building goes ahead" continued Mr Clark

Ropemaker themselves state on their website "Ropemaker Properties Ltd has made no commitment to fund specific infrastructure at this time".

Government funding for the infrastructure is fundamental flaw in the Plan. We call on Bill Rammell and the Council to lobby for this money. They have always argued for infrastructure before or at the same time as the houses. They will be judged by the people of Harlow on their performance.

"The Government has adopted a high risk strategy which, if it fails, will set Harlow's regeneration back by a whole generation. We hope they see sense before it is too late" concluded" Mr Clark

Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
http://www.stopharlownorth.com/

[Return to top of page]

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

Ten Reasons to Reject Harlow North

The independent planning Panel studied all the evidence at the Examination in Public.
They comprehensively rejected building homes to the north of Harlow.
This is the third time that Ropemaker's proposals for these green fields have been turned down.
"No, No, No" say the professionals.

But what do others think about Harlow North.
· The Regional Assembly (EERA) received over 3,500 objections during the public consultation.
· Most of those questioned (55%) in Harlow Council's 2005 survey did not support the idea.
· 98% of the residents of Eastwick and Gilston, where the building would be, objected in a parish survey
· 95% of readers of a local paper agreed in a recent poll that Harlow North should be scrapped
· Ropemakers newsletter generated over 1,000 responses supporting the Panel's rejection of Harlow North

And Bill Rammell, MP, previously said "The proposal for the threatened development is singularly without merit and should be ruled out at an early stage" (Feb 1999).

There are ten simple and objective reasons to reject Harlow North

Harlow's new local plan provides for Harlow's housing need. The Housing Requirements Study published by the Council in April 2005 shows only 2,121 homes are needed. 10,000 more homes are not for your children but to satisfy the Government growth agenda.
There is no justification for the claim that a large northern expansion of the town will help regeneration. It would compete with the existing town for investment and skilled workers. The Panel concluded "The proposed strategy, in relying on "satellite" settlements …, runs the risk that these will function as rival attractions in terms of the housing market and economic activity".
There is no evidence of employers' interest in providing thousands of jobs. Without jobs the housing will be a dormitory town for commuters. Latest projections show 18,000 more houses than jobs if the Plan goes ahead
There are serious unresolved problems in providing water supply and sewage treatment to serve the expansion of Harlow. All the sewage, whether from north, east, south or west, has to be treated at Rye Meads sewage treatment works. As the Environment Agency stated in its written submission to the Examination in Public "There is effectively no spare capacity".
Enormous demand will be placed on facilities for the elderly, healthcare, education and transport infrastructure. Schools in Harlow are being closed, as are playgrounds. There is no programme for any significant additional hospital capacity. Rail services are under severe strain. The Panel was concerned that "The West Anglia railway, although providing important links to London, Stansted and Cambridge, was recognised as being under pressure on capacity"
The Department of Transport has consistently argued against a new junction on the M11. The Panel concluded "The creation of a northern by-pass … was regarded as a prerequisite to accepting development to the north. The road proposal is, however, highly controversial in itself and at this stage is far from guaranteed". The most serious traffic problems already exist in Harlow; more housing will only make matters worse.
The area is separated from Harlow by a dual carriageway, a railway line, and the wide flood plain containing the River Stort. The original Harlow masterplan recognised the Stort Valley as a natural boundary. The Panel "saw the Stort Valley and the floodplain defining the northern boundary to the town." Ropemakers propose a "Living Bridge" to connect the two towns but the Environment Agency does not support this as it breaches fundamental principles, including building on the floodplain.
Land to the north of Harlow is on the direct flight path into Stansted airport and subject to considerable and constant noise. With the whole of the region to choose from why choose to build directly under a flight path?
The Sustainability Appraisal of the Plan states "The scale and pace of growth envisaged is likely to be highly environmentally damaging…. and is likely to have serious negative impacts on water resources biodiversity, tranquillity, air quality, recreational access and congestion". Everyone's quality of life will be damaged.
Massive investment is needed in infrastructure for Harlow before development can reasonably commence. The Regional Assembly has suspended its support for the Plan because of the lack of Government funding and Ropemakers have made no commitment to fund specific infrastructure.

Whatever local politicians might suggest the Panel of highly experience independent professionals was sceptical about what the development would contribute to the town of Harlow and its regeneration.

Those arguing for Harlow North should be aware that the Government could simply add 10,000 homes to the current target of 13,500 and double Harlow's problems.

Please join the campaign for a "better not bigger Harlow".
Send an e-mail to secretary@stopharlownorth.com or visit www.stopharlownorth.com and see our alternative plans for Gilston Great Park.

[Return to top of page]

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

Response to statement from Bill Rammell & Harlow Council on 27 November

The statement issued on Monday 27th November by Bill Rammell, MP, and the group leaders of Harlow Council on the Panel report of the draft East of England Plan must be a great disappointment to the people of Harlow both in content and timing. The Panel report was issued way back in June and their statement simply rehashes the same old tired arguments that were dismissed by the planning professionals on the independent Panel. There is nothing new and this intervention is really rather desperate. There is no mechanism to make representations to the Secretary at State at this stage in the planning process.

The arguments the politicians raise were all discussed in depth at the Examination in Public (EiP) earlier this year. All sides submitted their arguments and after three days of debate in which everyone had their say the Panel comprehensively reject building north of Harlow. A whole host of reasons were given by the Panel for rejection. No arguments have now been raised that have not already been thoroughly explored. The politicians’ arguments were not persuasive then and they are not now.

It is a shame that these politicians did not attend the EiP to listen to the whole debate. They would have heard, for example, that the standards required to treat the sewage from Rye Meads are beyond the current limits of sewage treatment technology. The independent Chairman of the EiP summarized it this way “we have a problem. We have no technological solution and no locations on which to plan facilities to solve that problem”. It is not a question of funding but lack of technology and the ability of the river Lee to accept any more sewage, be it from the north, east, west or south of Harlow.

They argue the Stevenage expansion was recommended even though there was a road through the middle and surely an expansion to the north of Harlow separated by a river would be fine. Harlow North would be separated from the existing town by a river AND a road, a railway line, and a wide floodplain. The Environment Agency is fundamentally opposed to any building in the floodplain.

We could also talk about the misalignment of jobs and housing, water supply problems, the damning sustainability appraisal, the Department of Transport’s lack of support for a new junction on the M11, the capacity constraints on the West Anglia railway, the massive infrastructure deficit before development can start etc…… demolishing their arguments one by one as we did at the EiP.

However, it might be more interesting simply to note

In 1999 Mr Rammell launched a strong attack on proposals to develop around 10,000 homes in the green belt north of Harlow. It was reported then that “Mr Rammell fumed: "The proposal for the threatened development is singularly without merit and should be ruled out at an early stage”.”
At our meeting with Mr Rammell in the summer of 2005, before the EiP, he stated that the Government would be foolish to ignore the Panel’s recommendations. Of course that was before he knew Harlow North would be rejected.
Harlow Council has never debated the Panel report; it is therefore unclear on whose behalf the councillors are speaking. Harlow Council did commission a study this summer to consider its options in view of the Panel report, at a reported cost of £45,000, but we have learnt that the Council has no plans for this study to be published, discussed or shared with stakeholders. One might suppose its contents are not helpful to their cause. (If the councillors used the study in drafting their comments, or decided to ignore it, we should be told and the report should be released.)

Clearly having studied all the evidence earlier this year the independent Panel agreed with STOP Harlow North. They concluded that a strategy reflecting the original plans for Harlow proposed by the Regional Assembly in Feb 2004 better suits the town’s needs. This strategy agreed by the Assembly, of which Harlow Council is a member, specified there should be restraint on development north of the Stort and west of the M11.

Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State, will publish the Proposed Changes in a couple of weeks when we will all have the chance to comment on her conclusions which we hope will endorse the Panel’s recommendations for no building north of Harlow.

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
November 28th 2006

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 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 East of England 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.

4. 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 rejected housing development north of Harlow.

[Return to top of page]

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

Land to the north of Harlow- Actively Managed Countryside

Today STOP Harlow North publishes an exciting report on proposals for the area north of Harlow as "actively managed countryside". The suggested name is Gilston Great Park.

The land to the north of Harlow has been subject to a number of house building proposals since the early 90's. Each in turn has been rejected; most recently in the Panel Report into the draft East of England Plan published in June 2006

The 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.

The various stakeholders in the area perceive the value of this land in different terms. The principal land owners, Ropemaker Properties Ltd, the property arm of the BP Pension fund, obviously have a financial interest, whereas local communities value the land in its current state as an environmental resource. These two views appear to be diametrically opposed and in the meantime the area is stagnating as there is little incentive to invest in the land as it lacks a stable long term plan. Is there a way out of this impasse?

"The 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.

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

"STOP Harlow North would welcome comment and constructive debate on the ideas either by letter, email or via our website, www.stopharlownorth.com. We would be happy to meet to discuss the ideas in more detail if people consider that would be both helpful and appropriate." concluded Mr Clark

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
October 13th 2006

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."

4. The full report is available for download in pdf format on http://www.stopharlownorth.com/GGP.htm High quality images of the report diagrams are available from secretary@stopharlownorth.com

5. The East of England 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.

6. 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 rejected housing development north of Harlow.

[Return to top of page]

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

Summer visitors to Eastwick

The countryside north of Harlow hosted two significant events this weekend.

Bird watchers from across the UK descended on Gilston to catch a sight of the rare Pine Grosbeak that has taken up residence there; another piece of rare wildlife under threat from development

On Sunday Eastwick hosted the second STOP Harlow North “Meet in the Middle” rally. The group’s supporters from all the villages affected and many from Harlow town itself were joined by Mark Prisk, MP to launch the next stage of the campaign

Mr Prisk emphasised that the fight to save the green belt north of Harlow was not over and the campaign still had much hard work ahead.

"The independent inspectors have clearly stated that a new settlement north of Harlow is the wrong way forward. The regeneration of Harlow and the protection of unique countryside go hand in hand. We must make sure that the Government now listens to the inspectors it appointed and rejects any last minute pleas to change course." said Mr Prisk.

Nigel Clark, Secretary of STOP Harlow North paid tribute to the hard working committee members and all the supporters who had contributed to the campaign. He also reminded them that the campaign is not over yet.

“This was a working session to launch Phase 2 of the campaign. There was no celebratory champagne served on Sunday just burgers and beer for the “sore heeled” walkers who had taken the chance to enjoy the countryside on a wonderful summer’s day.”

Bill Rammell’s, MP for Harlow, recent letters and statements were on display at the rally. Many supporters expressed disappointment at his response to the Panel report.

“Mr Rammell is trying to set the community of Harlow against the residents of East Herts, blaming us for Harlow’s problems. This is plainly wrong and unjustified. His support for massive growth at Harlow, rather than focussed Government funded regeneration within the town, has led directly to the significant challenges Harlow now faces” stated Mr Clark

The BBQ raised much needed funds to continue the campaign and gear up for the next public consultation on the East of England Plan around November.

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
17th July 2006

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. 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. Examination in Public.
The EiP hearings took place from 1 November to 16 December 2005 at The Maltings, Ely, Cambridgeshire and from 17 January to 3 March 2006 at the Spirella Ballroom, Letchworth, Hertfordshire.
4. The Secretary of State appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson is the Chair and Roy Foster is the Inspector Member. The Panel identified nine Matters for debate following analysis of the 21,518 responses to the public consultation on the Plan. This will included detailed consideration of the plans for each locality.
5. There is no formal consultation on the Panel report now.
Planning Policy Statement 11 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 Regional Planning Body (EERA) 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...
6. Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, MP will publish her Proposed Changes to the Plan in November. Any changes agreed by Ruth Kelly will be subject to a further round of public consultation
7. Photographs of the rally and the Pine Grosbeak are available from secretary@stopharlownorth.com

[Return to top of page]

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

What a difference 7 years makes! STOP Harlow North compares Bill Rammell's changing position on the issue

After the proper democratic processes had run their course and Harlow North was recommended for removal from the East of England Plan, last week Bill Rammell, MP issued an extraordinary statement in response to the independent Inspector’ report.

We thought we might compare this statement with his reported statements in 1999 when he attacked the proposals to build 10,000 homes north of Harlow.

“It would appear that Mr Rammell has been more than a little inconsistent in his views. He was furious in 1999 when it was proposed and now he is angry it is recommended for removal.” stated Nigel Clark Secretary STOP Harlow North.

Then	Now
As reported 13th February 1999	Statement 26^th June 2006
MP, Bill Rammell has launched a strong attack on proposals to develop around 10,000 homes in the green belt north of Harlow.	Harlow’s leading politicians have expressed cross party dismay at the independent Inspector’s revisions to the draft Regional Plan for Harlow and the surrounding areas… to remove the proposed development of 10,000 from Harlow North
In a bid to halt the huge housing development, the furious MP has written to the public inquiry that will consider the long-term development of the South East. Mr Rammell fumed: "The proposal for the threatened development is singularly without merit and should be ruled out at an early stage”.	Bill Rammell MP said, “I have always argued for the housing we need and the regeneration of Harlow but I am very angry that well heeled campaigners outside Harlow have undermined that and have persuaded the independent Panel to slash housing development outside Harlow
"The Government has expressed its strong opposition to unnecessary developments in the green belt.”	“It had been hoped that concentrating development to the north of Harlow would bring additional benefits
However, Mr Rammell said: "In my opinion, the Green Belt around Harlow serves a social need to Harlow's residents. The Stort Valley is a particularly attractive part of the Green Belt and one that deserves particular protection”	He did not mention the Green belt of the Stort valley this time but said “, increasing the risk to our green spaces. We do need more housing but these proposals are unfair to Harlow”
And he pointed out that a previous public inquiry rejected an earlier BP Pension fund bid for 5,000 homes -- dubbed Maplecroft	He does not point out now that Harlow North had been rejected twice before. This is the third time.
Following strong objections to the BP Pension Fund's plans, the MP has celebrated news that the fund's owners, Ropemaker Properties, will not be allowed to provide evidence at an examination into the plans. (15th May 1999)	Harlow’s leading politicians expressed concern that campaigners outside Harlow supporting the Stop Harlow North campaign had persuaded the Inspectors to drop the Harlow North development Fortunately we were able to address the Examination in Public in 2006 and presented a well argued planning case for removal
The MP's comments follows opposition from East Herts and Harlow councils	He does not point out that Harlow North is opposed by Hertfordshire County Council, East Herts Council and all the parishes affected. Harlow North is not even in his constituency.

Further response to Mr Rammell’s statement can be viewed on the front page of our web site

Issued by

Nigel Clark

Secretary STOP Harlow North,

www.stopharlownorth.com

2^nd July 2006

Notes to Editors:

a. · A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration

b. · To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted.

c. · To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages

d. · To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

2. The extracts in Column 1 are taken from newspaper reports of the time that are available on the internet.

3. The extracts in Column 2 are taken from the Joint Press statement issued by Bill Rammell and the 3 group leaders on Harlow Council on June 26^th 2006. Please contact Ruth Fox in Bill Rammell’s office for copies.

4. Italics are STOP Harlow North comments

[Return to top of page]

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

Mystery leak of Harlow Council papers.

A confidential draft report on the regeneration of Harlow has been leaked to controversial developer Ropemaker Properties.

Last year STOP Harlow North asked numerous times for a copy of the draft of the Harlow Regeneration Report commissioned by Harlow Council so that they might study it well in advance of the expected start date of the Examination in Public. These requests were denied.

“Political leaders in Harlow had challenged us to outline our own strategy; best done we thought by studying all the work done at that time. We made a first request for the report in February 2005 and continued to make regular requests under the Freedom of Information Act, all denied, until the report was finally published in late August” stated Nigel Clark Secretary of the group.

“We were therefore surprised to discover a few weeks ago that Ropemaker Properties had quoted from the draft regeneration report in June 2005 when they met with English Partnership. The report was not publicly available at that time. It had certainly been denied to us” he continued

STOP Harlow North has worked with Harlow Council for a number of weeks to address this matter but have reached an impasse as Ropemakers refuse to divulge their source

Regeneration Steering Group partners, who help draw up the report, have been contacted and they have confirmed that they did not release the report.

STOP Harlow North have also established that Harlow Council did not release a copy of the draft Regeneration Strategy report directly to Ropemaker Properties but that Ropemakers obtained a copy of the draft report at their Sustainability Symposium- a meeting which was held behind closed doors under the "Chatham House Rule".

Ropemakers Properties are not prepared to identify who attended their Symposia or the person who gave them the report.

“It is a mystery who leaked the report but I am sure people will appreciate the seriousness of this matter. Somebody has breached confidence and broken the Council’s trust. This may have been unintentional but I think it is in everybody’s best interests for the responsible person to identify themselves so their affiliations and motives can be understood. Ropemakers refusal to address legitimate concerns about breach of trust is very worrying.” stressed Mr Clark.

“When Ropemakers were offered a copy an unpublished publicly funded document shouldn’t they have returned it unread or at least made some effort to check whether they should be using it?

How can the public trust Ropemakers to work in the best interest of Harlow regeneration when they hold meetings behind closed doors and take advantage of privileged information” concluded Mr Clark.

Issued by

Nigel Clark

Secretary STOP Harlow North, www.stopharlownorth.com

30th May 2006

Notes to Editors:

a. · A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration

b. · To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted.

c. · To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages

d. · To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

2. STOP Harlow North has received, under the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of a presentation made by Ropemaker Properties Limited to English Partnership on June 23rd 2005. In this presentation Ropemaker Properties Limited quote directly from the second draft of the Harlow regeneration report. They also ask how they can progress “important discussions in absence of Local authority involvement”

3. STOP Harlow North asked all the leaders of the political parties on Harlow Council for comment. Chris Millington, Joint Leader - Harlow District Council replied. “Harlow Council has made every effort to find out the source of the leaked document given to Ropemaker Properties. As you point out this appears to have been isolated to a symposium in Cambridge. Unfortunately the Council does not have any powers to insist that Ropemaker Properties reveals the source of the report. We regard this as a serious matter and the Council will continue to make every effort to prevent its recurrence”

4. STOP Harlow North asked Ropemaker Properties via their web site

“Do you believe you maintained the highest standards of professional and ethical behaviour when you made use of an unpublished taxpayer funded document (the draft regeneration report for Harlow) shown to you in confidence at your sustainability forum to promote your proposals to English Partnerships? What would BP's code of practice say on this matter? Should you not have refused to use the document in anyway until it was publicly available?

Ropemakers did not publish an answer on their website but responded via e-mail:

“The draft regeneration report was made available to Ropemaker without any qualification; given the circumstances in which it reached us, we assumed that it had been circulated without any embargo on the extent to which it could be made available to third parties. Ropemaker Properties Limited has full confidence in the propriety of its professional team”

5. STOP Harlow North asked Ropemaker Properties via their web site:

“Can you categorically confirm that the person who prematurely leaked the draft Harlow Regeneration Report to you is not associated with Harlow District Council by being a member of the Regeneration Steering Group or a member of an organisation which was represented on this Steering Group?”

Ropemakers refused to publish an answer on their website but responded via e-mail:

“It is considered this question is outwith the scope of the Q&A facility on the Website which is intended to address issues arising from the physical planning of the scheme”

6. Ropemakers state on their website “The Harlow North Sustainability Symposia took place under the Chatham House Rule, whereby participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of any participants may be revealed. Originating but not limited to Chatham House, the Chatham House Rule is now commonly used with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage the sharing of information and free discussion at events”

7. STOP Harlow North believes the purpose of the Chatham House rule is that it allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. STOP Harlow North does not believe it is appropriate to use the Rule to allow anonymous distribution of information which has been withheld from others using Freedom of Information Act exceptions.

8. The Regeneration Steering Group comprised: Business Link for Essex, Harlow Primary Care Trust, Harlow College, Herts County Council , East Herts Council, Epping Forest Council, East of England Development Agency, Go-East, Princess Alexander Hospital Trust, Essex County Council, Learning Skills Council and Harlow Centre for Voluntary Support

9. Ropemaker Properties are the property arm of the BP Pension Fund which is seeking to develop 25,000 homes north of Harlow in East Hertfordshire. www.harlownorth.com

[Return to top of page]

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

Did EERA ignore warnings about sewage problems around Harlow?

STOP Harlow North has recently learnt that the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) ignored clear warnings from Thames Water about the serious problems with sewage treatment around Harlow. EERA allocated massive housing growth to Harlow in the draft East of England Plan despite these explicit warnings; first given in 2003.

Thames Water highlighted in the Stansted/M11 Corridor Development Options Study (2003) that, "irrespective of the areas chosen for new development, there are potential issues with the disposal of treated sewage effluent. ………the ability to discharge that treated effluent to an existing watercourse may give rise to major environmental and river quality problems."

STOP Harlow North used the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 to request all the documents EERA had dealing with sewage issues.

"We have searched all the documents EERA sent us for any work on sewage treatment and could find no relevant studies" stated Nigel Clark Secretary STOP Harlow North "Thames Water warned EERA first in 2003 and again in its submission to the public consultation on the Plan in early 2005 but little, if any, work was done. It is a fairly fundamental omission"

Participants at the EiP in February were stunned by revelations from the Environment Agency and Thames Water that the sewage issue had not been addressed by EERA.

At the EiP it was suggested that an Integrated Water Cycle Study should be urgently conducted jointly by the Environment Agency, Local Authorities, water companies and appropriate development agencies. Last week GO-East informed STOP Harlow North that, as yet, no decisions have been made a regarding Water Cycle Study and it is uncertain whether such progress will be made prior to publication of the Panel's report that is expected in June.

"This is a show stopping issue for the housing growth around Harlow but EERA and GO-East seem to hope it will simply go away. The Plan as currently written is fundamentally unsound. Waste water has to be dealt with" continued Mr Clark

STOP Harlow North has now written to EERA to ask why their representative at the EIP claimed there had been an ongoing dialogue between EERA and the waste water industry. The documents EERA have so far supplied show little evidence of any dialogue on waste water treatment. "If there is any more information, we would love to see it" concluded Mr Clark

Issued by

Nigel Clark

Secretary STOP Harlow North

2nd May 2006

Notes to Editors:

a. · A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration

b. · To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted.

c. · To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages

d. · To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.

2. Thames Water highlighted in the Stansted/M11 Corridor Development Options Study (2003) that, "irrespective of the areas chosen for new development, there are potential issues with the disposal of treated sewage effluent. New and upgraded sewage treatment works are able to treat flows to a high standard. However, the ability to discharge that treated effluent to an existing watercourse may give rise to major environmental and river quality problems. Where volumes of treated effluent are high when compared to the base flows in the receiving watercourse, the dilution factor may be small and the watercourse base flow may thereafter consist primarily of treated sewage effluent."

3. STOP Harlow North asked EERA "Under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 could you supply me with any and all information for 2003, 2004 and 2005, including but not limited to correspondence, reports and meeting minutes, relating to water supply and sewage treatment in the Stansted/ M11 sub region. Please include any reports supplied by the Environment Agency and the relevant water companies."

The STOP Harlow North later asked EERA to confirm that "no other significant work or studies on sewage treatment in this sub region have been taken into account in the regional planning process and that they had supplied all the available information both under the EI regulations and the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act."

EERA responded "We have supplied the information you requested and you are at liberty to draw conclusions from this material"

4. Extracts from transcript of EiP Feb 15th-

Full transcript is available by request from admin@stopharlownorth.com

Environment Agency (EA) Debbie Jones

Moving on to the sewage issue, the sewage treatment issue, Rye Mead as we mentioned before, presently serves a very large area which includes Stevenage and Harlow. The scale of the development that is proposed across the catchment will almost certainly require higher standards of treatment and just to explain that, and the comment that you made, is that if you increase the loading on the STWs the available dilution in the water course is less therefore the technology to meet the standards has to be that much higher. What we’re saying is that with the proposed population growth, the technology is not available to meet the standards beyond that which it can meet at the moment. And I have to say that Rye Mead is an exceptionally highly developed and highly efficient sewage works at the moment.

Thames Water (TW) Mark Dickenson

The growth in Harlow alone is an increase of 25% or 50,000 population equivalent on the works. Rye Meads STW is located at the headwaters of a sensitive river. Most of the river is made up of what we discharge from the STW therefore further growth will inevitably results in a reduction of the treatment limits.

After hearing from a number of participants

Chair

If I can summarise what you say in layman’s terms, we have a problem. We have no technological solution and no locations on which to plan facilities to solve that problem and no funding as far as Thames is concerned to address it until 2010?

In response to GO-East

Chair

Thank you. Can I take up just one aspect of that and is there any sense in which Sustainable Development and considering Sustainable Communities requires a more holistic approach rather than the sort of sequential one that you imply there, where you decide where development is going to go on a regional scale and how much you are going to have and then you deal with the consequences in terms of engineering the environment to cope with it.

Whereas perhaps you make that decision perhaps all in one rather than simply regarding the water environment consequences as a consequence, as an implementation issue because clearly it may have an influence on the options available to you as to where development takes place, in what quantity over what timescale and so on. So is there an element in which more integration of the process is required and that the reason why we are in a little bit of a bind this afternoon is that that hasn’t been the approach so far?

Trying to sum up EERA Mike Burchell

Chairman, hopefully just trying to wind up on the issue we’ve been discussing. I mean I think you’ve been getting the impression that there’s been no dialogue going on between EERA and the water and waste water industry. That has clearly not been the case, and we have various iterations in the process to date, had exchanges of view and whilst we have been given the clear impression that the development strategy that is being proposed is a challenging target, none the less, we’ve not been given any impression that it is prohibitively a problem.

5. 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.

6. The Secretary of State appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson is the Chair and Roy Foster is the Inspector Member. The Panel is expected to issue its report in June 2006.

[Return to top of page]

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

ODPM own figures show houses planned for East Herts and Harlow are excessive.

Last month amid uproar and consternation the ODPM published household projections for the region. These figures, which have been widely condemned as excessive and a return to the discredited predict and provide policy, suggested the East of England needed 100,000 homes more than in the draft East of England Plan.

Councilor John Reynolds, Chair of EERA's Regional Planning Panel recently said: "The predictions for household growth in the East of England over the next twenty years are surprisingly high and if translated into new homes would result in a massive increase in house building and development that is simply not sustainable.” ² We agree.

The detailed district figures have now been released³ and they confirm the deep flaws in the whole spatial strategy. At a district level the East Herts allocation in the draft East of England Plan is 10,000 more homes than is necessary. This is exactly the number of homes proposed for Harlow North. The projections suggest that only 11,000 new homes are necessary in East Herts; a number that is in line with the council’s own assessment of need.

Harlow has been allocated 8,000 homes in the Plan; double the number necessary to cope with expected need. Harlow’s current local plan will meet the predicted household growth. So Harlow doesn’t need Harlow North either!

“It is clear that the draft East of England Plan is not based on local need or any rational forecasts. There has obviously been a high level political decision at EERA or G0-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 ODPM 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 locally⁴. Building the number of homes around Harlow suggested by the draft East of England Plan is a recipe for disaster.”

Issued by

Nigel Clark

Secretary STOP Harlow North

April 18^th 2006

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:
1. · A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration
2. · To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted.
3. · To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages
4. · To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.
East of England press release 16^th March http://www.eera.gov.uk/News.asp?cat=38&id=SX740F-A77FA365

The ODPM household projections at sub regional level are shown below at county level with district level breakdown for Essex and Hertfordshire. These figures have been prepared from the Draft East of England Plan Policy H1 and the OPDM household projections.

The Policy H1 is in Chapter 7 of the draft East of England Plan (DEEP) available here

http://www.eera.gov.uk/category.asp?cat=452

The OPDM household projections at sub regional level are in Table F here

http://www.odpm.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	DEEP houses 2001-2021	Difference	%
EAST	511	478	-33	-6%

Cambridgeshire	78	89	11	14%

Essex	142	123	-19	-13%

Basildon	10	11	1	7%
Braintree	20	8	-12	-62%
Brentwood	2	3	1	45%
Castle Point	5	4	-1	-20%
Chelmsford	10	14	4	40%
Colchester	15	17	2	14%
Epping Forest	8	11	3	38%
Harlow	4	8	4	100%
Maldon	7	2	-5	-66%
Rochford	7	5	-2	-34%
Tendring	20	9	-12	-58%
Uttlesford	6	8	2	33%
Southend-on-Sea UA	12	6	-6	-50%
Thurrock UA	16	19	3	16%

Hertfordshire	78	80	2	2%

Broxbourne	8	5	-3	-36%
Dacorum	6	6	0	5%
East Hertfordshire	11	21	10	89%
Hertsmere	7	4	-3	-40%
North Hertfordshire	13	16	3	22%
St. Albans	11	7	-4	-36%
Stevenage	6	6	0	7%
Three Rivers	7	4	-3	-49%
Watford	5	5	0	-8%
Welwyn Hatfield	6	6	0	-3%

Norfolk	88	73	-15	-18%

Suffolk	71	59	-12	-17%

4 http://www.stopharlownorth.com/press_releases.htm#EAST%20OF%20ENGLAND%20PLAN%20WOULD%20BRING%20MORE%20WORKERS%20THAN%20JOBS

This previous press release in September 2005 explains problems of jobs and housing alignment

5 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.

6 The Secretary of State appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson is the Chair and Roy Foster is the Inspector Member. The Panel is expected to issue its report in June 2006.

[Return to top of page]

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

autious welcome to Urban Regeneration Company for Harlow

STOP Harlow North cautiously welcomes the creation of a dynamic new company to accelerate the momentum of regeneration initiatives already underway within Harlow.

“There is an urgent need to regenerate the deprived urban areas of Harlow, to renew the existing housing stock and to attract new jobs. This will be a difficult task and very separate from any talk of growth outside the town’s current boundaries. We are pleased that the real issues of regenerating the existing urban fabric are now being addressed.” said Nigel Clark Secretary of STOP Harlow North.

However he added “There are a couple of areas of concern. The company needs to be democratically accountable and we would be very concerned if Ropemaker Properties or BP had any significant influence within this company”

The company will need to address the issue of sewage treatment capacity very soon.

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:
1. A better Harlow, not a bigger Harlow. Any development north of Harlow will compete with the existing town and hamper its regeneration
2. To protect our environment. Greenbelt is there for a reason and should not be built on until all other alternatives have been exhausted.
3. To protect the unique identity and historic character of rural villages
4. To bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process.
The new regeneration partnership will be formed along the lines of an Urban Regeneration Company. The founding members are Harlow District Council; Essex County Council; East of England Development Agency (EEDA); and English Partnerships, the national regeneration agency.
The issues of sewage treatment capacity were the subject of a press release on Feb 19^th. http://www.stopharlownorth.com/press_releases.htm
Harlow Council’s press release can be found here: http://www.harlow.gov.uk/content-7978

[Return to top of page]

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

Water and Sewage stall plans for Harlow North

At 6pm on Wednesday 15^th Feb. the Examination in public for the draft East of England Plan finally got to the nub of the matter. The Environment Agency and Thames water had just presented their cases to the Panel.

"The Chairman summarised, and I paraphrase, there appears to be little water, no sewage capacity and no funding to even starting looking for solutions until after 2010. The reaction in the room was stunned incredulity. It seems EERA did not take the warnings about water in the Sustainability Assessment of the Plan seriously" stated Nigel Clark Secretary STOP Harlow North who was at the table for this debate.

The proposals for Harlow North effectively shuddered to a halt, blocked by the mundane issues of sewage and water supply.

The Environment Agency had argued:

"We believe that available evidence shows that the sub-regional water environment is at risk of, or already suffering from, detrimental effects at the current level of (water) abstraction and that there is little or no scope for increasing abstraction" and "The rivers in this sub-region are characterised by low flows and already receive significant discharges of treated effluent from existing development. There is effectively no additional capacity available from existing sewage treatment works". They also stated "New development would need to be accompanied from the beginning by the necessary new infrastructure. We are not confident that this could be achieved in all locations proposed by the Plan and by other participants."

The main thrust of Thames Water's submission was:

The projected household growth would mean sewage discharge consents cannot be met at Rye Meads Sewage works by current treatment techniques 95% of the time as required by regulation
Water Companies obtain their funding for infrastructure investment through OFWAT. Funding for 2005-2010 has already been agreed. The next draft submission to cover the 2010-2015 period will only be submitted in 2007 for discussion.
It takes 5 to 10 years to develop and put in place new technological processes once they have been identified and therefore it is unlikely that anything will be in place until after 2016
The new consent regime required is likely to be beyond current treatment technology, thus likely requiring the identification, research, development and implementation of a new treatment process. This will be more energy intensive, possibly doubling the current energy use of the current treatment process
Protection of the environment: watercourses; Rye-Meads sewage treatment works Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Area (SPA) may ultimately limit the amount of growth that can be accommodated

The Panel has now asked the Government and relevant agencies to prepare a note urgently on possible ways forward on the water and sewerage issues around Harlow.

Ropemaker attempted to make a case for a number of local neighbourhood sewage plants in greenhouses within their development.

"These would still be upstream of the Hunsdon Meads SSSI and effluent would still discharge into the same rivers that already receive treated effluent from existing development. This is no solution. This issue hasn't really been thought through properly. It is a real show stopper.

Even if the Government agencies come up with some sort of fudge of these major infrastructure issues any building north of Harlow could not proceed before 2016. This effectively destroys the argument that Harlow North is deliverable. In layman's terms Ropemakers plans for Harlow North appear to be up the creek without a paddle." concluded Mr Clark

Issued by
Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
Feb 19^th 2006

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

The written statement of the Environment Agency to the EiP on Matter 8H1 can be found here:

Matter 8H1 participants statements (http://www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/340378/)

The written statement of Thames Water to the EiP on Matter 8H1 can be found here

Matter 8H1 non-participants statements (http://www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/340378/)

Audio files from the debate should be available for download from the EERA website by Monday 20th February

The Sustainability Appraisal of the Plan states "The scale and pace of growth envisaged is likely to be highly environmentally damaging.... and is likely to have serious negative impacts on water resources biodiversity, tranquillity, air quality, recreational access and congestion"

The report is available here: http://www.eera.gov.uk/category.asp?cat=382

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.

Examination in Public.

A detailed timetable, list of matters to be discussed and invited participants to the EiP is available from www.goeast.gov.uk .
The further EiP hearings will continue from 17^th January until 3^rd March 2006 at the Spirella Ballroom, Letchworth, Hertfordshire. Harlow was discussed on Feb 14^th and 15^th.

The Secretary of State has appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson is the Chair and Roy Foster is the Inspector Member. The Panel has identified nine Matters for debate following analysis of the 21,518 responses to the public consultation on the Plan earlier this year. This will include detailed consideration of the plans for each locality

[Return to top of page]

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

STOP Harlow North sends a Valentine's Day message to the Prime Minister

Supporters of the STOP Harlow North campaign group today sent a Valentine's Day message to Tony Blair pleading "Don't tear the heart out of our community", from the opening day of the discussion on Harlow at the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan in Letchworth. The giant card was hand-delivered to No10 by Mark Prisk MP, within whose East Herts constituency the controversial proposed development lies. Mr Prisk, together with scores of other STOP Harlow North supporters, had responded to the request by the group to demonstrate their views to the government-appointed Inspector, and had arrived in such numbers that it was standing-room only in the Spirella Ballroom venue. The group held a peaceful demonstration outside the building before the start of the day's proceedings, and were rewarded for their show of support for the cause by the Chairman of the inspecting panel, when he took the last-moment decision to re-arrange the order of the intended two days' debate to ensure that all those who had made the effort to attend should hear a discussion about the specific housing proposals, originally intended for the second day. Nigel Clark, Secretary of STOP Harlow North, spoke for the group and - unprecedented in the normally formal, unemotional and empty setting in which the Examination has run since starting in November - was applauded loudly by supporters, prompting the Chairman to joke that the outcome of the Examination would not be determined by the clapometer ratings of each speaker! Other speakers in the course of the day included councillors from Herts and Essex, developers - including Ropemakers, the property nominees of the BP Pension Fund who own most of the land north of Harlow, on the opposite side of the flood plain of the River Stort in East Herts - and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

“STOP Harlow North would like to thank everyone who came to Letchworth today to support our campaign. It was a great boost and clearly made an impression upon the Inspector. The discussion was very lively and over-ran the intended timescale for the day, but the important thing is that Panel listened to what we had to say and could not fault the logic of our arguments” commented Nigel Clark at the end of the day's proceedings. "Perhaps not surprisingly, we have not yet had a response from the Prime Minister to our Valentine's Day message, even though we made it quite apparent who had sent it!"

Issued by

Mike Newman
Representative of Hunsdon Parish Council on STOP Harlow North
14th February 2006

Notes for 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 East of England Plan.

Examination in Public.

A detailed timetable, list of matters to be discussed and invited participants to the EiP is available form www.goeast.gov.uk.

The EiP hearings will take place from 1 November until 16 December 2005 at The Maltings, Ely, Cambridgeshire and from 17 January until 3 March 2006 at the Spirella Ballroom, Letchworth, Hertfordshire.

The Secretary of State has appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson is the Chair and Roy Foster is the Inspector Member. The Panel has identified nine Matters for debate following analysis of the 21,518 responses to the public consultation on the Plan earlier this year. This will include detailed consideration of the plans for each locality.

[Return to top of page]

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

Rare birds found on Harlow North site

Under sustained questioning from the STOP Harlow North group Ropemaker Properties have recently released data from their studies of bird population on the unspoilt green fields north of Harlow. The results will be a blow to their proposals to develop the area.

Buzzard, Water Rail, Barn Owl, Nightingale, Cetti's Warbler , Wood Warbler, all Hertfordshire rare breeding birds, were found. Two are scarce breeding birds in a national context; Barn Owl and Cetti's Warbler. A third species, Kingfisher, is also likely to be nesting on the Stort river valley.

A relatively high diversity of red listed species was recorded in the area. 24 Hertfordshire red listed species were recorded and 14 Red Listed Birds of Conservation Concern in the UK were recorded. The majority of the red listed species recorded were farmland birds, not surprising given the dominance of agriculture in the landscape. The 2005 survey work has shown that although a good range of red listed species are present in the area; the numbers and density of these species are generally low, mirroring the national declines a lot of these species have suffered

“It is vital that these scare breeding birds are protected. The low numbers found reflect the damage already done to our countryside. The area needs to be conserved so that the decline in the populations of these rare birds can be reversed.” said Mike Newman spokesman for STOP Harlow North.

“The area is also home to one of the largest bat populations in Hertfordshire and a significant herd of deer. We believe otters have also been sighted along the river. There is enormous environmental value to the land; it must not be lost to concrete” added Mr Newman.

“We have forwarded the information to all the relevant Government Agencies and will raise this matter when we put our case against Harlow North at the Examination in Public on Feb 14^th. The presence of these rare birds is a significant issue” concluded Nigel Clark Secretary STOP Harlow North

Issued by

Nigel Clark

Secretary STOP Harlow North

January 15^th 2006

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.

Studies regarding the bird populations in the Harlow North area have been undertaken over the last two years.

Rare bird species and red listed bird species have been listed separately as they are defined differently.

A rare bird species is a species that is scarce in a given geographical limit, for example scarce in a UK, or scarce in a Hertfordshire or Essex context. A rare bird species may or may not also be a red listed bird species.

Definitions for a ‘red listed' bird species depend upon which red list is under discussion. The two pertinent red lists (because they are most up to date and geographically relevant) are the Hertfordshire Red Data List for Birds (Smith et al. 2003), and the RSPB list of species of conservation concern in the UK (Gregory et al. 2002). Both these lists have criteria that encompass geographical rarity. For the Hertfordshire list any bird species with less than 25 breeding pairs in the County qualifies as a rare breeding bird, and also a red listed bird.

The red lists also have criteria other than geographical rarity: for example, a marked decline in population is a criterion in both lists.

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.

Examination in Public.

A detailed timetable, list of matters to be discussed and invited participants to the EiP is available form www.goeast.gov.uk.
The further EiP hearings will continue from 17^th January until 3^rd March 2006 at the Spirella Ballroom, Letchworth, Hertfordshire. Harlow will be discussed on Feb 14^th and 15^th.

The Secretary of State has appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richardson is the Chair and Roy Foster is the Inspector Member. The Panel has identified nine Matters for debate following analysis of the 21,518 responses to the public consultation on the Plan earlier this year. This will include detailed consideration of the plans for each locality.

[Return to top of page]

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

STOP Harlow North highlights flaws in draft East of England Plan at Examination in Public

STOP Harlow North took the first of their four opportunities to address the Examination in Public on the draft East of England Plan on Nov 16th and 17th. The topic was broad locations for major growth. The discussion focused at a strategic level on the role of new towns like Harlow and the potential for a new settlement in the region. Detailed discussion on Harlow will happen next February.
We asked the Panel to consider "How did the land north of Harlow ever achieve strategic status?" The version of the Plan presented to EERA in Feb 04 stated "no building north of the Stort and west of M11". The Plan Nov 2004 stated: "no building north of the Stort, with the exception of the area north of Harlow required for strategic growth, and west of M11". Nobody has provided an adequate explanation.
We argued that Harlow North is a 'site specific' proposal and as such has no place in a strategic regional planning document. Government guidance refers to broad locations as "areas of search" within which a number of suitable sites may exist. We believe Ropemaker's site is the only one north of Harlow that fits the proposals in the Plan.
We questioned why EERA had rejected the notion of a new settlement of 25,000 houses within the Plan period because it is not deliverable but included development north of Harlow because it is "deliverable". For all intents and purposes Harlow North is a new settlement, of similar scale, separated from Harlow by the floodplain, river, railway and road.
We queried the massive investment required for infrastructure before development can commence and argued if Harlow North continues to be an element of the plan it will become a commitment mill-stone preventing better options for the regeneration of the town. We challenged the ODPM to fund the resolution of Harlow 's current traffic problems.
(Note: On Wed 16th The Government announced it was to cancel the upgrading of the M11 between junctions eight and nine north of Stansted for at least 10 years. The proposal to widen the road from two lanes to three was a key recommendation in the Government's own study in 2003, but it has now been rejected by the Department of Transport as being not needed.)
On the Green Belt we argued that the Plan demonstrably fails to appreciate its role and significance. It is an urban policy to encourage urban renewal. Not a rural policy there to provide a reservoir of land for urban expansion.
We concluded by saying that the Plan does not deal with the issues it should be addressing instead it has meddled in the things that should properly be left to local democratic processes.
"STOP Harlow North is pleased by the reception it received from the Panel and grateful for having the opportunity to present our case. This was good prelude to the big battle in February when the specifics of Harlow are discussed. The Panel listened to what we had to say and our confidence is growing every day that we can get all references to building north of Harlow removed from the Plan" commented Nigel Clark , secretary STOP Harlow North, who spoke for the group at the hearing.
Issued by

Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
November 22nd 2005

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. 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. Examination in Public.
A detailed timetable, list of matters to be discussed and invited participants to the EiP is available form www.goeast.gov.uk.
The EiP hearings will take place from 1 November until 16 December 2005 at The Maltings, Ely, Cambridgeshire and from 17 January until 3 March 2006 at the Spirella Ballroom, Letchworth, Hertfordshire.
4. The Secretary of State has appointed the EiP Panel members: Alan Richard son is the Chair and Roy Foster is the Inspector Member. The Panel has identified nine Matters for debate following analysis of the 21,518 responses to the public consultation on the Plan earlier this year. This will include detailed consideration of the plans for each locality.

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************
Bill Rammell MP rebuffed by Examination Panel.

STOP Harlow North has been taken aback by Bill Rammell's response to the draft list of Issues and Participants for the Examination in Public (EiP) of the draft East of England Plan At the first Preliminary meeting on June 14th the Examination Panel was very clear in stating: "The Panel do not conduct any private discussions with any participant or respondent..." However, in his letter to the Panel of 20th June, a copy of which has now been obtained by our campaign, Bill Rammell appears to be seeking a private meeting with the Panel. After seeking the inclusion of Harlow 2020 and PORA at the EiP he asks "Finally, as MP for the Harlow constituency I would welcome an opportunity to speak with you about the issues of concern as well"
Our campaign has now received confirmation that Mr Rammell's approach has been rebuffed by the Panel. He has not been invited to address the EiP nor to speak to the Panel in private. Pam Percival-Maxwell, Panel Secretary, in an e-mail to our campaign replied "I can confirm categorically that the Panel has not met (nor will they meet) with Mr Rammell MP or any other respondent, other than those meetings conducted in public such as the Preliminary Meetings, Seminars or Examination sessions"
"I am surprised at Mr Rammell's request. He does not appear to be asking to play a part in the Examination in Public but for a separate opportunity to speak to the Panel. He must know the rules" said Dr Ian Brett, STOP Harlow North spokesman. Dr Brett continued "He has had the same opportunity as everybody else to submit comments to the Panel through the democratic process. If Mr Rammell has something to say he should say it in public."
"Our campaign has asked Mr Rammell twice for comment on this issue but has received no reply" stated campaign Secretary Nigel Clark

Issued by

Nigel Clark
Secretary STOP Harlow North
26th September 2005

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 first preliminary meeting of the Examination in Public (EiP) Panel was held on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 at the Maltings, Ely. The minutes are available here: http://www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/rss_eip_panel_sec/rs s_eip_lists_notes_mins Point 1.5 states; "The Chairman stressed the independence of the Panel. It is for himself and Mr Foster to reach their own conclusions and recommendations uninfluenced by the authors of the Draft Plan. Nor do the Panel take instruction from either the East of England Regional Assembly or the Government Office for the East. The Panel do not conduct any private discussions with any participant or respondent, which is why all contact is made through the Panel Secretary. Any advice the Panel receives will be part of the Examination Library."
All representation to the Panel are public documents and available on request or by inspection at the Panel offices in Cambridge.
The full list of participants at the Examination in Public are available here: http://www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/rss_eip_panel_sec/rs s_eip_lists_notes_mins
Stop Harlow North have been invited to attend Sessions 2B, 4, 8A and 8H1. 8H1 is the Stansted/ M11 corridor session dealing with Harlow.
Bill Rammell name does not appear in any sessions at the EiP.
The final and third Preliminary meeting dealing with matters of procedure ahead of the EiP was be held on Sept 14th 2005 at the Maltings, Ely.
The EiP will start on Nov1st 2005 at the Maltings, Ely.
STOP Harlow North wrote to Mr Rammell on 8th Sept and again on 18th September to ask for an explanation of his letter. Mr Rammell has not replied to either e-mail.
PORA is the campaign for the Protection of the Roydon Area.

[Return to top of page]

**********************************************************************************************
EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN WOULD BRING MORE WORKERS THAN JOBS

A recent study to test the draft East of England Plan's evaluation of population growth against job trends has found that the draft Plan's proposals would massively unbalance the alignment between jobs and available workers in the Stansted /M11 sub-region by 2021. The Stansted/M11 Corridor would increase its substantial worker surplus. There will be an additional 17,000 more workers than jobs by 2021 should the draft Plan go ahead unchanged; up 13,000 from the original 2004 study.

This latest studies confirms that the East of England Plan's proposals for new housing in the corridor that includes Harlow will increase the mismatch between workers and jobs. There will be more of a reliance on jobs being provided in London. This will both increase congestion and commuting.

Commenting on the study Nigel Clark, Secretary of STOP Harlow North stated ”It will be for the independent Examination in Public Panel to recommend to John Prescott what changes should be made to the draft East of England Plan. However, the provision of more housing at the southern end of the Stansted /M11 corridor around Harlow seems very foolhardy. We will end up creating a dormitory town in the Green belt; that cannot be sustainable'

Issued by

Nigel Clark

Secretary STOP Harlow North

Sept 13th

Notes for 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. Extracts from Regional Technical Advisors Group meeting papers August 31^st 2005

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*	*+15,500*	*+65,500*

Moving away from alignment by increases in worker surpluses:

Stansted/M11 – a major increase

Luton-Dunstable-Houghton Regis – a major increase

Rest of Suffolk – a minor increase

3. The Alignment Study is an update of a similar study carried out last year to test the impact of the draft East of England Plan. It has been made available to assist participants of the Examination in Public in the assessment of the Plan (starting on the 1st November), which will be in front of an independent Panel who will make recommendations to the Government.

4. The Study used new information on population growth (produced by Anglia Polytechnic University), national trends in economic growth and changes in commuting patterns, which are based on a number of scenarios.

[Return to top of page]

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

STOP Harlow North wins first battle in planning process.

STOP Harlow North has achieved a significant victory in the planning process after teaming up with Phil Michaels, solicitor from Friends of the Earth Rights & Justice Centre.

Since the start of 2005 our campaign has faced intransigence from the East of England Assembly (EERA) in making the strategic planning process more transparent. Repeated requests for Regional Technical Advisors Group (RTAG) planning papers have been refused despite an assurance that EERA would follow ‘the spirit’ of the Freedom of Information Act. The ODPM office in the East of England (GO-East) refused to release the document claiming they had a “duty of confidentiality” to EERA.

In mid August Go-East and EERA were obliged to comply with our demands to supply these secret planning documents. They were confronted with legal arguments under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 that meant they could no longer deny our requests.

Phil Michaels pointed out "New rights of access to information put members of the public in a much stronger position than ever before. However, as this case illustrates there is a real problem with authorities dragging their feet and failing to meet their obligations. In those cases it is important to stand up to the authorities, as did STOP Harlow North, and to demand that the authority complies with the law."

Nigel Clark Secretary STOP Harlow North added “It took a well worded letter from a well–versed lawyer to show EERA had been wrong all this time. One has to question who has been advising EERA. I want to thank Friends of The Earth for their support”. He continued “STOP Harlow North now has some of the papers we wanted and we have the opportunity to study them ahead of the Examination in Public. At least the playing field is less tilted against us now, albeit eight month late.”

STOP Harlow North has an objective “to bring back fairness and democracy in the strategic planning process” and this is a significant step on that journey.

“It was quite stunning. A body purporting to represent the people of the region refused to disclose the technical planning discussions it held behind closed doors. These discussions will affect the quality of life for millions of people and should be open and transparent” concluded Mr Clark

Issued by

Nigel Clark

Secretary STOP Harlow North

12^th September 2005

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. Phil Michaels is head of Friends of the Earth Rights & Justice Centre and can be contacted on legal@foe.co.uk, 020 7566 1726

3. The Regional Technical Advisor Group (RTAG) comprised officers from various local authorities, GO-East, EERA and EEDA (East of England Development agency) who prepare papers and agenda items for the Regional Planning Panel (RPP).

4. RTAG is not a decision making body but makes recommendations to RPP and sets the agenda for RPP.

5. STOP Harlow North made a first request for the relevant RTAG papers on 3^rd January 2005

6. The third Preliminary meeting of the Examination in Public (EiP) Panel will be held this Wednesday September 14th at the Maltings in Ely.

7. The Regional Planning Panel meets this Friday, September 16^th, at New Hall College, Cambridge, to discuss lines to take at the Examination in Public based on RTAG discussions on August 31^st.

[Return to top of page]

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

STOP HARLOW NORTH RALLY

Over 200 STOP Harlow North supporters braved the weather on Sunday to "Meet in the Middle" at Eastwick. Young and old turned out on foot, bicycle and horseback to demonstrate their opposition to proposals for massive development in the countryside north of the river Stort. The campaigners had organised a BBQ and picnic at the end of the walks to celebrate reaching their first objective: an invitation to the Examination in Public to be held later this year.

"I am overwhelmed by the strong show of support today" said Mike Newman, Spokesman for STOP Harlow North and event organiser. "It is as sign of how passionately people feel about this issue"

Mark Prisk, MP, read an inspiring poem to the assembled crowd and emphasised that we are only guardians of the countryside for future generations. Mr Prisk stated his determination to take the fight directly to John Prescott and commented that the campaign group had already made an impact in Whitehall, being described as 'serious and well organised ' by worried government officials trying to bulldoze the proposals through.

Kevin Fitzgerald spoke of CPRE's determination to protect the Green Belt and the enormous threat to Hertfordshire green spaces in the draft East of England Plan. CPRE in Hertfordshire is being fully supported by their national organisation in their preparation for the Examination in Public.

Derrick Ashley, Executive member for Hertfordshire County Council, stressed the undemocratic, unnecessary and unsustainable nature of the proposals and gave the council's full backing to the campaign group. He urged people to keep registering their concerns through the media and by writing to John Prescott. County, district, town and parish councilors came in large numbers to show their support for the STOP Harlow North group.

ISSUED BY

Nigel Clark

Secretary STOP Harlow North Campaign group

Note for editor: Photographs are available from admin@stopharlownorth.com

[Return to top of page]