LRA Objections to Regional Plan

(This is a short description of the document LRA submitted to the East of England Regional Assembly. The new Government has scrapped regional plans, and has said that future planning decisions will be taken by local councils. However, we expect similar pressures to return in future.)

The Eastern Regional Assembly’s Planning Panel originally allocated a target of building more than 18,600 new houses in Epping Forest District in the period to 2021. (There are currently about 12,000 houses in Loughton, and 52,000 in the whole District). Where necessary, the current protection of the Green Belt would be removed.

It could change the whole character of Loughton and its surrounding area.

That number has since been reduced, thanks to efforts made by council officers and LRA and other councillors. But the plan still threatens the quality of life in our area. LRA has studied the plan carefully and submitted the following objections.

Homes

The plan:

‘11,000 new homes proposed for Epping Forest district’ (an enormous increase from the current growth target to 2016 of 2,300)

We say:

The Loughton area is constrained by Green Belt in the north and forest to the west, and in the east by the River Roding. So any increase in housing under current planning rules would be predominantly from in-fill. The character of Loughton has been formed by its environmental constraints. Any housing development beyond these boundaries, for example into the Metropolitan Green Belt, would reduce the quality of life of those who live and work in the area. The scope for in-filling – if the character of residential areas is to be respected – is now quite limited.

For the district, this is by far the highest increase in the whole of Essex. It will mean quadrupling the size of the village of North Weald. Development would have to extend beyond the Airfield site into the wider parish of North Weald, closing the gap with Harlow boundary, and taking still more Green Belt land.

The lack of foresight in this plan forces us to argue for a reduction in target housing numbers for Epping Forest district. We also seek assurance that the local planning authorities will have effective powers to manage the rate and scale of new housing development to reflect real growth in locally-accessible (and locally-attractive) employment.


Jobs

The plan: ‘40,000 additional jobs forecast’

The East and South-East are seen as the dynamo of the national economy, and the plan is grounded in considerable expected growth in the southern regions. These jobs are expected to emerge/be established in the next 20 years in Harlow, the Lea Valley and on business sites at North Weald.

We say:

This is an extremely uncertain forecast. More importantly, it is unlikely that new residents in the district will all take up jobs near to their homes. Many will have moved out from London, but will continue to work there. Other new residents will be more attracted to salaries and career prospects in the capital or in Cambridge, and will add to commuting pressure.

Transport, utilities, education, health…

We say:

The vast increase in homes will add enormously to traffic congestion on the district’s roads, and to numbers of commuters on the over-loaded Central Line. There are no firm estimates of the scale and cost of the additional work to transport systems, increased supplies of water, energy and sewerage, and of new community provision - more school places, GP and hospital services, police.


Affordable housing

The plan:

The provision of affordable housing relies on private developer funding, with 30-40% affordable allocations on larger sites.

We say:

Alternative funding mechanisms will be required, particularly in high-cost districts adjoining London. The plan must also include clearer statements and stronger commitments to sources and levels of funding which will be required for affordable housing - as indeed for a range of essential infrastructure developments also - if its aims and aspirations are to be met. Local authorities, with local strategic partnerships, should retain powers to shape affordable housing provision of all types in ways which best meet the needs of local communities.


North vs South

We say:

There is considerable depression in other parts of the country, particularly in the north where some 400,000 homes, many of them still occupied, face demolition because they are in areas considered of ‘low demand’ and ‘market failure’. A wider review should be undertaken of the unsustainable and excessive housing targets in the East of England Plan, in relation to the surplus housing in the ‘low demand’ and ‘market failure’ regions of the country and in particular of the possibility of regenerating the economies, communities and fabric of the latter by enlightened government intervention.

Environment

The plan:

‘The spatial planning vision for the East of England is to sustain and improve the quality of life for all people who live in, work in, or visit the region.’ The policy envisages lost Green Belt which will be replaced in areas beyond the districts directly affected.

The Environmental Impact report:
This report, required by law, states:
‘The rate and intensity of economic, housing and infrastructure growth envisaged for the region, especially its southern parts, is intrinsically damaging to many aspects of the environment and quality of life.’

We say:

The local Green Belt forms an integral part of the quality of life of local residents, both in terms of the areas immediately surrounding Loughton and Debden, and in the wider hinterland of the town. Providing substitute Green Belt areas at a distance does not maintain local residents' quality of life, as required under the draft plan. Nor does it meet one of the primary purposes of the Green Belt, to prevent the outward spread of London. If any changes are to be made to Green Belt boundaries in the area, they should only be minor.


Our conclusions

There should be an immediate appraisal of potential for a new, large settlement further north in the Region, where benefits would be greater and London commuting less prevalent. This should have been part of the plan preparation from the start.

Housing numbers for Epping Forest district should be reduced.

The proposed level of housing in the Epping Forest District, far from improving the quality of life for people in the area, will have the opposite effect and it will not be sustainable.

Realistic estimates of cost for essential infrastructure expansion (physical and community services) in each district and sub-region should be carried out before housing target numbers are confirmed.

The plan is supposedly based on job estimates – which are extremely uncertain – and fails entirely to look at the future costs of growth.