Report on Draft Planning Policy Statement and Sustainability Appraisal Consultation: North East Elsenham Eco-town

Response to Consultation

Prepared for Elsenham and Henham Parish Councils

Hives Planning Ltd,

46 Queens Road,

Reading,

Berkshire.

RG1 4AU

Tel:0118 958 7331Ref:TP/933/07

Fax:0118 939 4119

Email:te:January 2009

© COPYRIGHT

The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Hives Planning Ltd.

CONTENTS

  1. Introduction
  1. Policy
  1. Transportation
  1. Stansted Airport impact
  1. Employment provision
  1. Regeneration and Harlow
  1. Size, self-containment and sustainable settlements
  1. Historic settlement impact
  1. Countryside impact
  1. Utilities and flood risk
  1. Lack of information
  1. Conclusions

1Introduction

1.1Hives Planning Ltd (HPL) have been instructed by Elsenham and Henham Parish Councils (EHPC) to report on the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Draft Planning Policy Statement: Eco-Towns (DPPS) generally and specifically on its proposal for a new Eco-Town at North-East Elsenham (NEE).

1.2In March 2007 the Minister at the DCLG announced that “new small zero carbon 'eco-towns' built on brownfield land could lead the way in cutting carbon emissions and building affordable homes” and that David Lock had been appointed to advise the Government.

1.3DCLG published the Eco-Towns Prospectus in July 2007 inviting Local Authorities and prospective developers to submit schemes for consideration. Of 57 projects put forward, DCLG shortlisted 15 in April 2008 alongside a consultation document "Living a Greener Future". The DPPS was published in November 2008 with a list of 11 locations for Eco-Towns.

1.4The consultation period deadline has been extended from 19 February to 6 March 2009, largely to allow for the Judicial Review (and outcome) arranged for 22/23 January 2009. One of the issues highlighted by Mr. Justice Collins in granting permission for the Judicial Review to proceed is “there must be concern that the [Secretary of State DCLG SoS] may have disqualified herself from considering any planning application for an Eco-Town because of perceived bias in its favour”.

1.5Whatever the outcome of the Judicial Review, there is obvious concern over the fairness and transparency of the process, with potential for conflicts of interest:

  • The SoS produces a policy, advised by a planning consultant. Locations for new settlements are subsequently identified.
  • Evidence on which those choices have been made is based in part on submissions made by the same planning consultant now acting on behalf of the developer (Eco-Towns Sustainability Appraisal, NE Elsenham, November 2008 ‘SA’, paragraph 1.5.3).
  • The planning application, submitted by the same planning consultant, is then determined by the same SoS, whether on appeal or called in. Because of the locational specificity of the policy document, this would seem to be quite different to the normal consideration of policy when determining an appeal, or to the division of Government responsibilities in other cases (e.g. policy in the Airports White Paper published by the Department for Transport, planning decision by SoS DCLG).
  • The ‘transparency and fairness’ point was made in the June 2008 consultation response by EHPC, but is not reported in “Eco-towns: living a greener future: summary of consultation responses” DCLG November 2008.
  • The role and approach of the SoS is not mentioned in paras 2.3 to 2.9 of the DPPS.
  • The “key characteristic” of an eco-town is that it “must be a new settlement, separate and distinct, but well linked to higher order centres” ... “to establish their own character and identity”(DPPS para 8). NEE seems to fall at that first hurdle being located “adjacent to the existing large village of Elsenham and close to the village of Henham” (SA para 2.2.2). In reality this is not a “new settlement” but a development which brings about the coalescence of two Essex villages, each with a different character to which is added the eco-town with a third character. The resultant combined settlement would not be “separate and distinct” but rather a confusing mixture of “character and identity”.
  • Other key characteristics and issues are set out in the DPPS and SA which include
  • should be of sufficient size/critical mass to establish identity and provide services, a minimum number of 5,000 homes (DPPS para 8), or 5,000 to 20,000 homes (DPPS para 4.1)
  • should “relieve pressure for development in urban areas”, and “deliver new ... infrastructure such as for transport ...” (DPPS para 8)
  • “proximity to a railway station and potential for rail to be used to access off-site employment and services” (SA 2.8.1)
  • “a greenfield location comprising versatile agricultural land” (SA 2.8.2)
  • “capacity constraints on local roads” (SA 2.8.2)
  • “the potential to change the setting and character of historic villages” (SA 2.8.2)
  • “we consider that indicators should include a particular focus on transport and employment – two of the most challenging issues associated with eco-towns and two of the most important determinants of their overall sustainability.” (SA 2.9.1)
  • These points and others are dealt with in the following report.
  • The last point above is critical to the assessment on whether this would be a ‘sustainable settlement’. Matters such as building design and energy efficiency, carbon neutrality, and open space provision are important, but unless the new town is sustainable in principle these are matters of secondary importance. The proposal is fundamentally flawed if:
  • road access to the eco-town would be inadequate, whatever the benefit of the railway station may be
  • the settlement is too small to provide adequate employment facilities for its population, resulting in an unacceptable degree of out commuting
  • a secondary school is unviable, leaving pupils to travel elsewhere
  • it is commercially not feasible to provide adequate retailing for daily needs within the settlement.
  • “Lessons from Cambourne” (Platt, S. 2007) is referred to (SA 2.9.2). This is a study of a new settlement of similar size which gained masterplan approval in 1996 and started in 1998. After ten years of construction during a period of economic and house building boom, only half the settlement had been completed (p 4), the high street is less than half built (p 21). Other findings are (p 19):
  • Cambourne is not self-contained in terms of jobs, secondary schools (it is too small for a secondary school, p 45), or services
  • Cambourne is not, either in terms of size or character, a village as was originallyconceived. Nor is it a small town.
  • The key objectives of sustainability embodied in the Master Plan, of selfsufficiency,high performance environmental design and the use of renewables, donot seem to have been met.
  • At 5,000 homes, NEE is at the bottom of the range envisaged for eco-towns (5,000 - 20,000 homes,DPPS para 4.1). At such a small size the lessons from Cambourne are pertinent. It seems extremely unlikely that any degree of self-containment will be achieved, even though the DPPS requires that “to be successful, eco-towns will need to be thriving and cohesive communities where residents want to live, work and raise their families from the outset” (DPPS para 4.30, emphasis added).

2Policy

2.1The SA says that the East of England (EoE) Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) “points to the role of eco-towns in further increasing housing provision” (SA 2.3.2). This is not so, eco-towns have one mention (RSS para 3.6) which merely sets out the eco-town process, it does not endorse “their role” at all.

2.2The SA is also misleading on the way NEE is or is not dealt with in the RSS. The Panel certainly listened to submissions by David Lock in February 2006 in support of Elsenham (David Lock/ The Fairfield Partnership participant 5515, page 32 Vol 11 Appendices, paragraph 5.107 Volume 1 Report) and saw “the merit of arguments put forward by some participants in favour of Stansted Mountfitchet and Elsenham, on the West Anglia rail line, as locations for some development as an alternative to further additions in the A120 settlements. Again we would see this as something to be determined through the LDD process.” In any event, the RSS, which takes account of the Panel Report, makes no mention of NEE.

2.3The Uttlesford District Council (UDC) Core Strategy draft Preferred Options (November 2007) did include a proposal for 3,000 homes at Elsenham/Henham, which has proven to be very controversial and attracted a large number of objections. At the Full Council meeting on 22 April 2008, it was resolved that “this Council is totally opposed to the development of an Eco Town north east of Elsenham, as proposed in the Department of Communities and Local Government’s consultative paper, “Eco Towns – Living a greener future” published on Thursday 3 April and will campaign to have this proposal removed from the shortlist”.

2.4Progress on the preparation of the Core Strategy appears to be slow; the latest Local Development Scheme does not now envisage a Submission version until June/July 2009. No support for the eco-town can therefore be attributed to UDC, and little status attached to the proposal in the 2007 Preferred Options consultation.

2.5Local Planning Authorities are clearly expected to look favourably on planning applications even where not included in an up-to-date Local Development Framework, in circumstances where the Regional Spatial Strategy requires higher levels of growth. Nearly all RSSs express housing figures as minima, including the EoE RSS Policy H1 so that in practice the argument that a planning application is in accordance with the DPPS will always be available.

2.6In the case of UDC, the Core Strategy is unlikely to include the NEE eco-town, given the stated position above, and in any event is unlikely to be adopted until 2011 at the earliest. The Local Plan (adopted 2005) is not based on the RSS and may not be considered ‘up-to-date’.

2.7Despite the DPPS saying “the Government remains committed to the plan-led system” (para 2.5) it seems clear that should NEE beincluded in the final PPS, the developer will make a planning application in 2009 which is most likely to be finally determined by the SoS, and the PPS will provide the backing for ignoring the ‘plan-led system’, and the concerns of the local community.

3Transportation

3.1The DPPS and SA rightly include many references to the need for a suitable transportation system to serve the needs of at least 5,000 dwellings or some 10,000 people. “Transport and the environment were focussed on since [DCLG] considered these to be the two principal place-specific factors governing the success of the growth proposal” (SA Introduction 2.3.1). Ensuring that “key connections around the eco-town do not become congested” (para 4.14) is clearly an ‘in principle’ priority to be demonstrated now, not at a later stage.

3.2In the case of NEE, however, the SA admits “The surrounding road network in the vicinity of the site is characterised by single carriageway unclassified roads, with relatively low traffic levels." (2.5.48). Also "Immediate road access to the proposed location is primarily by secondaryroads with width constraints" (2.7.29).

3.3The route through Stansted Mountfitchet is problematic:

"The proponents concede that Stansted Mountfitchet is congested at theam and pm peaks, and suggest that there will be a self-regulating effect,with residents of the eco-town choosing to avoid Stansted Mountfitchet." (EA 2.7.29)

3.4The alternative route is Hall Road, “whilst this is more indirect, and requires road improvements to secondary roads and lanes, it is less prone to congestion" (2.7.30). This 'lack of congestion' would surely soon disappear when this 'secondary road with width constraints' became the main route into the NEE eco-town of 5,000 dwellings. The expected solution seems be a new road proposed as part of the Stansted Runway 2 project. This cannot be relied on at all when the airport proposals have yet even to be considered at a public inquiry.

3.5Another mitigating factor is claimed to be the availability of the railway and its station, indeed almost the singlereason, at first sight, for choosing the NEE location. However, the evidence (rather than the aspiration) is that travel to work by 'public transport' is around 9% of trips (SA 2.5.43), so obviously less for rail alone. There is no data readily available on shopping or leisure trips, but current observation seems to indicate that car journeys represent the overwhelming majority of trips.

3.6A report has been commissioned from Stuart Michael Associates (Consulting Engineers) to examine the NEE transportation proposals, and is attached to this Report. It should be read in full, as it:

  • challenges the adequacy of the road system which is proposed for a new settlement of 5,000 dwellings
  • questions assumptions made by the promoters,
  • details the lack of information supplied which prevents proper evaluation
  • Whilst seeking to avoid repetition, the following is a brief summary of the main points raised, with the SMA paragraph reference:

Road system inadequate

3.8The proposals for road access to the Eco-town or any other major development at Elsenham are inadequate. Access is proposed to the B1051 which to the west runs through an already congested Stansted Mountfitchet and to the east is a country lane. Hall Road, the proposed access south from the B1051, is unclassified and unsuitable for the main road access for the Eco-town or other major development. These roads are subject to width constraints and therefore have the potential for congestion as a result of increased traffic levels associated with the development. There can be no reliance on road proposals associated with Stansted Airport Runway 2 which are subject to a planning inquiry and at best very uncertain. On the basis of the information submitted, and which has been reviewed, road access, via congested Stansted Mountfitchet or via the unclassified Hall Road, to the Eco-Town or other major development appears to be inadequate to serve the level of development being proposed (5.1, 5.5, 6.1)

3.9There are existing highway capacity constraints on local junctions and that new highway infrastructure is required for significant development in the vicinity of Elsenham (5.2)

3.10Local areas of employment are situated in Stansted Mountfitchet, the larger urban areas of Bishops Stortford and Harlow to the south and Saffron Walden to the north. Each of these locations requires travelling via Stansted Mountfitchet as does the main route to the motorway network (M11). Stansted Mountfitchet already experiences levels of congestion during the morning and evening peak periods, as does the access to the M11. Although the transport assessment suggest that development traffic would not seek out this route, any proposals for significant development at Elsenham would be likely to exacerbate peak hour traffic problems in Stansted Mountfitchet. (5.7, 5.8, 5.9)

3.11Should the highway works associated with Stansted expansion take place, the improved infrastructure would act as a trip attractant for traffic from the Elsenham development and reduce the capacity of the junction for airport traffic.(5.11)

Unsatisfactory Assumptions

3.12There are issues with some the assessments (e.g. assumptions based on a ‘low growth’ area and assumptions of internalisation of trips). Insufficient information has been submitted to support the proposals in respect of “trip capture” rates for trips contained within the settlement. The modelling relies on ‘low’ network traffic growth rates (representing natural traffic growth on the network), although as this is a growth area in the East of England RSS this would appear inappropriate. Further substantiation and sensitivity testing should be undertaken to demonstrate that the highway capacity modelling is robust. Trip rates for the development traffic appear to be too low from what would be expected in this location. The promoters may argue that the trip rates used reflect the ethos of the proposals as an ‘Eco-Town’ but this is critical such that the sensitivity testing should also be undertaken using higher development trip rates. These should assume a greater degree of car use as currently experienced in this location. Further information and sensitivity testing is also required in relation to trip assignment and the assumptions made on the most attractive routes for development traffic, particularly in respect of the assignment of traffic onto Hall Road / Henham Road. (5.3, 6.1)

Lack of information

3.13There are uncertainties over the degree to which the access strategy and infrastructure proposed as part of the development would mitigate against its impact. There are a number of additional points that need further clarification before any meaningful analysis can be made of the detailed proposals contained within the access strategy. (5.4)

3.14Whilst the access strategy proposes some measures towards providing capacity enhancement, these are considered inadequate given the scale of development proposed. There are some fundamental uncertainties concerning assumptions made within the transport assessment which are summarised above, these require additional supporting material to be supplied by the promoters of the development. (6.2)

3.15With reference to DPPS, it is recognised that where eco-towns are proposed close to existing settlements, as is the case at Elsenham, the application should “demonstrate options for ensuring that key connections around the eco-town do not become congested as a result of the development” (ref: DPPS paragraph 4.14). The information so far submitted does not do this. (6.3)

3.16In view of the above, on the basis of information provided it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that significant development at Elsenham would not result in unacceptable transportation impacts on the highway network. This is such a fundamental consideration that North-East Elsenham should not be included in the DPPS until these issues are resolved. (6.4)

4Stansted Airport Impact

4.1The site is within 2.5km of the existing runway of Stansted Airport, already the third largest airport in the UK, and perhaps destined to become the second largest. Planning permission has recently been granted to increase flight and passengers on the existing runway. A planning application is pending for a second runway which would have the effect of making Stansted Airport the same scale as Heathrow is now.

4.2There seems little assessment of the negative effects of the airport on NEE, although “the sound of aircraft is almost constant” (SA 2.5.20). Also

“The Generation 2 expansion proposal is to add a second runway at Stansted. If granted planning consent this would have more severe implications for the proposed development at Elsenham, not least because there would be major changes to the local road network in the vicinity of the airport.” SA 2.6.5 (emphasis added)