Agenda item

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report regarding the Harlow Council – Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation Document from Mr I White, Forward Planning Manager.

 

The consultation which ran from 29 November 2010 to 28 January 2011 was the first formal stage of Harlow’s preparation of its Core Strategy.

 

The exercise was proceeding at a time of significant disruption, and changes, to the planning system. These included:

 

(a)        The Government’s intention to abolish regional spatial strategies (RSSs);

 

(b)        The introduction of the New Homes Bonus to stimulate housing delivery; and

 

(c)        A new tier of neighbourhood plans.

 

There were 31 questions based around the following issues:

 

The Questions

 

Question 1     Do you think the Council has identified all the relevant issues that need to be addressed by the Core Strategy?; and

 

Question 2     If you disagree, what additional issues need to be considered by the Core Strategy?

 

Response      Officers believed that the response to Question 1 should be “No.” The sub-regional Green Belt location of the town, its wider landscape setting and the lack of growth options other than the RSS figures should be included as a response. In regard to Question 2 officers felt that while issues like climate change were mentioned in the consultation document, they were dealt with in a slightly offhand manner and should be more prominent in the adopted Core Strategy. There was no recognition of the wider context of the Metropolitan Green Belt, or the purposes of including land within it.

 

Question 3     Would the provision of 16,000 new homes in and around Harlow meet the current needs of the local community and help secure the regeneration of Harlow?; and

 

Question 4     If you disagree/strongly disagree, what do you think the scale of growth should be, ensuring that the Core Strategy addresses the particular issues facing Harlow?

 

Response      In answer to Question 3, the Council supported the regeneration of Harlow and understood than the figure derived from the RSS which itself had an evidence base justifying the total. Nevertheless, the Government had made clear its intention to abolish the RSS and all associated targets. Officers believed that it was not now possible to answer this question, given that some at least of the 16,000 houses would be built in the district. There had been no formal Council engagement with the local community to assess opinion. With respect to Question 4, officers did not believe that an open question of this nature could be realistically answered without an evidence base.

 

Question 5     Do the visions and priorities set out in the Community Strategy, the Council’s Regeneration Strategy and the Council’s Corporate Plan provide the basis to develop the vision for Harlow’s Core Strategy?; and

 

Question 6     If you agree/strongly disagree, what do you think the vision for the Core Strategy should be based on?

 

Response      Officers considered that the visions and priorities, with the possible exception of “a university town” were fairly generic and uncontroversial. As with Question 1, it was strange that the Core Strategy did not take account of the equivalent documents of the adjoining authorities which would be expected to take some of the growth, this gave the answer to Question 6.

 

Question 7     Do you think the Core Strategy Themes cover the range of planning issues in Harlow?; and

 

Question 8     If you disagree/strongly disagree what changes would you make to the themes to ensure they address the range of planning issues in Harlow?

 

Response      The answers to these questions were broadly similar to those for Questions 1 and 2. The themes were essentially inward looking, and did not fully take account of the wider environmental and amenity implications of Harlow’s expansion.

 

The themes should include:

 

• Appreciation of the regional purpose of the Green Belt
• The original design of the town recognising the need to contain southern growth within the landscape bowl
• More prominent and positive support for sustainable construction, carbon reduction and renewable energy.

 

Question 9     Do the Strategic Objectives provide the necessary framework to deliver the regeneration of Harlow?; and

 

Question 10   If you disagree/strongly disagree, what changes would you make to the Strategic Objectives?

 

Response      There were 26 strategic objectives listed in the consultation document. The key issues in Question 9 were the use of the word “strategic” and the emphasis on delivery. “Strategic” implied coverage broader than the town itself, which would be appropriate given that some of he proposed growth would have to locate in adjoining districts. It was felt that the wording of the objectives, was centred around Harlow with phrases like “local needs” which needed clearer definitions.

 

It was disappointing to note that no mention was made of climate change, carbon reduction, sustainable construction and energy efficiency. Delivery was key to the themes of the Core Strategy. This would require co-ordination with, and input from, other agencies and authorities. The Panel therefore felt that co-operative working should be a theme of the Core Strategy, rather just the 25^th of 26 objectives.

 

Question 11   Do you think the policy area identified cover the range of issues that are relevant to the regeneration of Harlow?; and

 

Question 12   If you disagree/strongly disagree, what changes would you make to the policy areas?

 

Response      Comments on these covered the same issues, for example, the one area dealing with Green Belt merely stated “Definition of extent of Green Belt.” This did not imply a broader understanding of the Green Belt or its importance to the adjoining authorities. The only references to landscape referred mainly to the setting of the River Stort, so the importance to this Council of development not breaching the southern ridge defining the Sort Valley was again unrecognised. Officers felt that sustainable development should be more prominent and that, in particular, “sustainable location” should be defined.

 

Question 13   Do you agree that new development should be directed to areas that will maximise regeneration of the town?

 

Response      It was not particularly easy to answer definitely because the areas were not specified. The likely employment locations identified included The Pinnacles site which was close to Roydon. Any further expansion or intensification of this site was likely to raise concerns about coalescence of settlements, landscape impact and traffic generation.

 

Question 14   Please rank, in order of priority (1 high, 5 low) where you think higher densities of development should go within the District:

 

(i)      Around public transport hubs

(ii)    Appropriate locations within neighbourhood areas

(iii)   Hatches

(iv)  Neighbourhood centres

(v)    Within the town centre

 

Response      Officers proposed not to offer a response to this question, as this dealt essentially with development within Harlow itself which was unlikely to raise issues of concern to this Council.

 

Question 15   Should the Council consider underused open spaces and other undeveloped land for development before considering releasing land in the Green Belt?

 

Response      The answer would ultimately depend on whether the spaces have other, currently unacknowledged, value, for example for wildlife or informal recreation.

 

Question 16   The Green Wedges have performed a variety of roles in shaping Harlow. Should the roles of Green Wedges be reviewed to meet future development needs in the Harlow area?

 

Response      The importance of the Green wedges to the design and layout of the town was acknowledged, but officers strongly supported the suggestion of review, given that the growth aspirations affected Green Belt land in this district and East Herts.

 

Question 17   Please rank, in order of priority (1 high, 8 low) the most important things that you think should direct new development in and around Harlow:

 

Response      Officers suggested the following hierarchy:

 

(1)        Maximise use of previously developed land

(2)        Protect Green Belt

(3)        Protect landscapes

(4)        Good access to public transport

(5)        Meeting regeneration goals

(6)        Existing infrastructure capacity

(7)        Protect Green Wedges

(8)        Underused green spaces (Harlow had proposed this as developing these spaces, but the suggested low priority was meant as protecting the space)

 

Question 18   Do the existing employment areas meet current and future employment needs?;

 

Question 19   If you disagree/strongly disagree, please explain what changes you think should be made to Harlow’s employment areas; and

 

Question 20   How do you think Harlow Council should shape future shopping development within the town?

 

Response      If it remained Harlow’s intention to grow by another 16,000 houses, it seemed very unlikely that the existing employment areas could accommodate future needs. There was already a lot of commuting both in and out of Harlow, but the consultation document was ambiguous about whether current needs were being met. There would be consideration for further employment land provision being made within the urban extension, which would include land within this district. Officers believed that this Council should be concerned about extensions to The Pinnacles, and for any such proposals along the southern edge of the town. The employment needs of the wider area, including this district, should be included in any assessment. As regards Question 20, the strategy proposed in the consultation document seemed appropriate.

 

Questions 21 to 25 sought comments on the 5 spatial distribution options investigated by consultants.

 

Question 21   What is your view on the Consultant’s recommendations regarding Option A?

 

Response      Option A was described as “RSS: Northern – led” and focused almost entirely on Harlow’s expansion into East Herts. This should be the Council’s favoured option because the greatest part of the growth would be close to the town centre and railway station and the two main employment sites, which should benefit Harlow’s regeneration aims, and with obvious implications for reducing the need for car travel and the promotion of sustainable transport and development. There would be minimal intrusion on the Green Belt in this district, and no threat to the southern ridge line. The main drawbacks were the objections of East Herts and Herts County Councils, and the need for significant infrastructure provision.

 

Question 22   What is your view on the Consultant’s recommendations regarding Option B?

 

Response      Option B was titled “Policy-led 2,” which showed that it was intended to reflect the broad directional and distributional intentions of RSS policy HA1, but with a greater emphasis on regeneration. The guideline figures, were 3,600 houses to the north, 3,300 east, 1,300 south and 2,800 west. The consultants stated that this would not breach the southern ridge line and that this would be a “reasnoble” option if some of the west housing could be re-allocated to the east and south. Officers agreed that it would be difficult to accommodate this level of growth to the west without significant adverse effect on the character of the area, but also felt that the southern ridge line would be threatened.

 

Question 23   What is your view on the Consultant’s recommendations regarding Option C?

 

Response      Option C was based on criteria developed by the consultants, and did not follow the general location guidelines of the RSS. This proposed 6,380 houses in the east, 3,520 south and 1,100 west. Officers felt this option was wholly unacceptable, the ridge line would be completely breached, with pressure for a southern bypass to Harlow.

 

Question 24   What is your view on the Consultant’s recommendations regarding Option D?

 

Response      Option D proposed 5,720 houses to the north, 2,310 east, 2,420 south and 550 west. This again was unacceptable because of the impact to the south, but if a substantial part of the southern allocation could be re-allocated to the east, this could be a reasonable option from this Council’s perspective. The northern distribution, and the adjusted eastern total were likely to require road infrastructure.

 

Question 25   What is your view on the Consultant’s recommendations regarding Option E?

 

Response      Option E was sustainable transport – led, which resulted in 2,530 houses to the north, 5,390 east, none to the south and 3,080 west. This may require some development in the Sheering/Matching area of the district, but of much greater concern was the possible coalescence of Harlow west with Roydon, identified by the consultants and wholly unacceptable to this council.

 

Question 26   What is your view on the Consultant’s Suggested Approach to accommodating growth around Harlow?

 

The consultant’s suggested approach was for 4,000 houses to the north, 5,000 to the east and 1,000 each to the south and south-west. While this addressed most of the environmental concerns of officers (although the southern ridge line may still be threatened), neither the south nor the west locations were strongly related to Harlow’s town centre or the main employment sites, and it was likely that most of the new occupants would use cars for commuting, unless there was a step-change in public transport provision and management within the town.

 

Question 27   Do you have any other comments on the approach to growth around Harlow?

 

Answering this question meant repeating earlier points about why the consultation was only presenting one growth option. There must be concerns that with the introduction of localism, Harlow’s expansion into adjoining districts was likely at least to be strongly resisted by affected local communities, and this in turn could influence the decisions of those authorities. If Harlow was to persist with this option of 16,000 houses with related employment and infrastructure provision, this pointed to the need for formal collaboration or co-ordinated working with the adjoining authorities, and for this to be at Member, as well as officer, level. By restricting itself to one option, the consultation was not considering alternatives which would contain new development within the existing district boundary.

 

Question 28   Do you think all the key elements of infrastructure necessary to support the emerging Core Strategy have been identified?

 

The consultation document listed the infrastructure requirement under nine general headings, officers were satisfied that this covered all of the essentials.

 

Question 29   If no, what additional infrastructure do you think is needed to support the emerging Core Strategy?

 

The wording of some categories was Harlow-centric and this should be amended to include the infrastructure needs of the adjoining authorities.

 

Question 30   Please rank, in order of priority, how Harlow Council should tackle Harlow’s congestion problems (1 high, 9 low)

 

(1)   Encourage use of public transport for work and leisure

(2)   Improve access to the town centre by sustainable modes of transport

(3)   Improve connections from Harlow to the Strategic Road Network (M11, A414)

(4)   Improve walking and cycling routes within the town

(5)   Manage future parking provision across the town

(6)   Measures to improve traffic flow along strategic routes and at roundabouts within the town

(7)   Public transport improvements

(8)  Rail enhancements

(9)   Other, please state below

 

Other projects were dependent on the support of external organisations such as the Highways Agency and rail operators, so whatever priority results from the consultation would still be dependent on other agencies. Officers were not proposing to reply to this question, but members may wish to identify what they see as the priorities.

 

Question 31   Do you have any further comments to make, at this stage, on how Harlow should be developed?

 

There was a need for joint, or co-ordinated working, at officer and member level, of all the affected local authorities, including Herts and Essex County Councils, in the preparation of the respective Core Strategies.

 

Officers were concerned that the Harlow Options consultation had not identified reasonable alternatives.

 

Officers believed that, in the light of the forthcoming abolition of the RSS, the evidence base which sustained it should be reconsidered to determine whether a growth target of 16,000 new homes was the right figure.

 

The consultation document and Panel member’s responses would be forwarded to the forthcoming Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

That the report regarding Harlow Council’s Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation Document be recommended to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.