Development Management in Harlow

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6219

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Thames Water (Savills)

Representation:


General Comments
Thames Water are in discussion with Harlow and neighbouring authorities with regard to long term growth
and infrastructure issues with the Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works catchment and these discussions
are ongoing. Hydraulic modelling is currently taking place of the sewer network and a position statement was
issued in June 2017 in relation to the position with regard to the sewer network and sewage treatment.

Full text:

HARLOW LOCAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES CONSULTATION. RESPONSE ON
BEHALF OF THAMES WATER

Thames Water Utilities Ltd (Thames Water) Property Services function is now being delivered by Savills (UK)
Limited as Thames Water's appointed supplier. Savills are therefore pleased to respond to the above
consultation on behalf of Thames Water.

General Comments
Thames Water are in discussion with Harlow and neighbouring authorities with regard to long term growth
and infrastructure issues with the Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works catchment and these discussions
are ongoing. Hydraulic modelling is currently taking place of the sewer network and a position statement was
issued in June 2017 in relation to the position with regard to the sewer network and sewage treatment.

Policy Comments
Thames Water support the proposed policy on SuDS under Policy PL10. With regard to surface water
drainage it is the responsibility of the developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground or
watercourse. It is only when all options have been exhausted and there is not practical reason for using
sustainable drainage, that developers should seek connection to the public network. It is important to
minimise the quantity of surface water entering the wastewater system in order to maximise the capacity for
foul sewage conveyance and to reduce the risk of sewer flooding.

Need for a policy on wastewater infrastructure
With regard to the proposed Development Management Policies consultation it will be important to ensure
that any development proposals coming forward are aligned with any necessary upgrades to the sewerage
network. Developers should be required to demonstrate that there is adequate capacity both on and off the
site to serve the development and that it would not lead to adverse amenity impacts for existing or future
users in the form of internal and external sewer flooding, or pollution of land and water courses.

In order to address this issue Thames Water request that the following policy and supporting text is included
in the Local Plan. Alternatively similar wording could be incorporated into the proposed policies such as
Policy PL10, which should address all forms of flood risk including sewer flooding.

Proposed Policy:
Planning permission will only be granted for developments which increase the demand for off-site wastewater
infrastructure where:*
1) Sufficient capacity already exists; or
2) Extra capacity can be provided in time to serve the development that will ensure that the environment
and the amenities of other users are not adversely affected.

In accordance with the Planning Policy Guidance, when there is a capacity constraint and improvements in
off-site infrastructure are not programmed, planning permission will only be granted where the appropriate
infrastructure improvements will be completed prior to occupation of the development.

Proposed Supporting Text:
The Local Planning Authority will seek to ensure that there is adequate wastewater infrastructure to serve all
new developments. Developers will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate capacity both on and
off the site to serve the development and that it would not lead to adverse amenity impacts for existing or
future users in the form of internal and external sewer flooding, pollution of land and water courses.

In some circumstances this may make it necessary for developers to carry out appropriate appraisals and
reports to ascertain whether the proposed development will lead to overloading of existing waste water
infrastructure. Where there is a capacity constraint the Local Planning Authority should require the developer
to provide a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will
be delivered.

Where there are infrastructure constraints, it is important not to under estimate the time required to deliver
necessary infrastructure. For example: local network upgrades take around 18 months and Sewage
Treatment & Water Treatment Works upgrades can take 3-5 years. Implementing new technologies and the
construction of a major treatment works extension or new treatment works could take up to 10 years.

Thames Water has limited powers under the Water Industry Act 1991 to prevent connection to its network
ahead of infrastructure upgrades. Thames Water relies heavily on the planning system to ensure
infrastructure upgrades are provided ahead of development either through Local Plan Policies or the use of
appropriately worded 'Grampian style' planning conditions.

In order to ensure that the water supply and drainage requirements of development proposals are understood
and that any upgrade requirements are identified, all developers should be encouraged to contact Thames
Water Developer Services in advance of the submission of planning applications.

Thames Water recommend that developers engage with them at the earliest opportunity to establish the
following:
* The developments demand for wastewater infrastructure both on and off site and can it be met; and
* The surface water drainage requirements and flood risk of the development both on and off site and can it
be met.

Information for Developers on water/wastewater infrastructure can be found on Thames Water's website at:
http://www.thameswater.co.uk/developers/1319.htm

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6265

Received: 04/09/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Representation:

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

In general, Natural England considers the development management policies provided to be relatively comprehensive. Your authority is aware that the West Essex/East Hertfordshire Housing Market Area Local Planning Authorities including yourselves, along with Essex County Council, Natural England and the Conservators of Epping Forest are all signatories to a Memorandum of Understanding relating to Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC). As that project progresses and following the undertaking of Habitat Regulations Assessment (as required under section 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) further amendments to the policies may be necessary.

Full text:

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

In general, Natural England considers the development management policies provided to be relatively comprehensive. Your authority is aware that the West Essex/East Hertfordshire Housing Market Area Local Planning Authorities including yourselves, along with Essex County Council, Natural England and the Conservators of Epping Forest are all signatories to a Memorandum of Understanding relating to Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC). As that project progresses and following the undertaking of Habitat Regulations Assessment (as required under section 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) further amendments to the policies may be necessary.

PL8 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Assets
Natural England notes that paragraph 2.48 recognises the hierarchy of sites. This however needs to be incorporated into the policy itself to satisfy paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Note that 113 further requires that criteria based policies are set and that distinctions should be drawn between international, national and locally designated sites. Whilst the document correctly recognises that Sites of Special Scientific Interest are the highest order of site within Harlow your authority should afford sites outside of the authority boundary the same level of protection.


Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6271

Received: 06/09/2017

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Representation:

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of De Merke Estates in response to Harlow
District Council's (HDC's) Regulation 18 consultation on its Draft Development Management
(DM) Policies.
1.2 HDC is in the process of producing a new Local Plan, which will contain Strategic Policies to
provide an overarching development framework for the town, supported by DM Policies which
contain more detailed planning guidance. These policies will be accompanied by a Proposals
Map.
1.3 An initial Issues and Options consultation was undertaken between 22 November 2010 and 28
January 2011, followed by an Emerging Strategy and Further Options consultation between 14
April and 30 May 2014.
1.4 This has been followed by the current DM Policies consultation. HDC's timetable for the
remainder of the Local Plan is as follows:
* Regulation 19 Consultation: January-February 2018
* Submission: April 2018
* Examination: Summer 2018
* Inspector's Report: August 2018
* Adoption: September 2018
1.5 These representations will highlight concerns with HDC's process of adopting the new Local
Plan, concerns with specific policies and seek to promote our Client's Site for development.

Full text:

See attached file for original document, promotion of site and appendices.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6272

Received: 06/09/2017

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Representation:

2.0 LOCAL PLAN PROCESS
2.1 Firstly, on behalf of our Client we wish to raise concerns regarding the Local Plan process that
HDC is following.
i) Separation of Strategic and DM Policies
2.2 The process for producing a new Local Plan is detailed in The Town and Country Planning
(Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
2.3 All three of these documents detail that the plan making process is a collaborative one that
requires engagement with statutory consultees, local residents, local businesses and all other
parties that have an interest in the Local Plan.
2.4 This engagement must start at an early stage, as identified in Paragraph 155 of the NPPF which
states that 'early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local
organisations and businesses is essential'. It continues to state that Local Plans should 'reflect
a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area'.
2.5 This is reiterated in the PPG, stating that Local Authorities must identify and engage at an
early stage with all those who may be interested in the Local Plan, and must take into account
all representations made and will need to set out how these have been taken into account
(Reference ID: 12-010-20140306).
2.6 HDC first engaged with the local community and statutory consultees in 2010 with the Issues
and Options consultation, starting engagement at an early stage. This was followed in 2014 by
the Emerging Strategy and Further Options consultation.
2.7 Whilst these consultations did allow HDC to engage with the local community and consultees,
these documents asked for their opinion on issues within the Harlow area and on a number of
different options on various issues, including how development could be allocated.
2.8 These previous consultations did not provide any specific policies or incorporate any decision
over the scale and distribution of development across Harlow and did not include a proposals
map.
2.9 The Emerging Strategy and Further Options consultation itself stated 'the preferred option will
be presented later this year / early next year before the plan undergoes public examination'.
2.10 However, no preferred options for the scale and distribution of development or draft proposals
map have been presented.
2.11 The current consultation comprises the DM Policies only, which provide a detailed planning
framework to be used in determining planning applications. These policies have been developed
to help deliver the Local Plan's strategic objectives, which have been grouped into 5 No. themes
and comprise 14 No. specific objectives.
2.12 However, these strategic objectives form part of the Strategic Policies aspect of the new Local
Plan, and whilst these are listed within the current consultation there is no further detail given
and limited opportunity to comment as a result.
2.13 Furthermore, the DM Policies refer to the strategic policies in some instances, particularly in
relation to housing need and the distribution of development. No detail regarding this is given,
with Policy H1 stating 'development of the Strategic Housing Site and other sites for housing
(allocated in the Strategic Policies) will be supported. Development of the Strategic Housing
Site will require a Master Plan to be submitted which takes into consideration the relevant
policies in the Local Plan'.
2.14 The justification for Policy H1 states the housing requirement is set out in the Strategic Policies,
with no other detail given.
2.15 To date there have been no documents published that identify HDC's preferred option for the
scale and distribution of development. Various options have been published for consultation,
but no details of any assessment or decisions that have been made.
2.16 The DM Policies suggest that decisions in this regard have been made, referring to 'the
Strategic Housing Site'. However, any indication of where this will be and what this
development will comprise is not available.
2.17 As detailed above, HDC is intending to publish only the DM Policies as the Regulation 18 Plan,
with a full Local Plan comprising both the Strategic and DM Policies published as a Regulation
19 Plan in January 2018.
2.18 The remit to respond to a Regulation 19 Plan is quite limited, concentrating on the four Tests
of Soundness and whether the Local Plan is compliant with relevant legislation.
2.19 As such, the PPG is clear that the Regulation 19 Plan 'should be the document that the Local
Authority considers ready for examination' (Reference ID: 12-020-20140306). The content of
the document should have already been consulted upon, with changes made as necessary.
2.20 There are substantial concerns that following the approach of only publishing the Strategic
Policies and proposed development strategy as a Regulation 19 consultation will result in a
Local Plan that fails to meet the legal requirement of having undertaken the necessary
consultation and adequately considered the representations.
2.21 Furthermore, HDC is anticipating submitting the Local Plan for examination in April 2018, which
does not provide any time to make amendments to the Local Plan and re-consult between the
Regulation 19 consultation and submission.
2.22 Given that the Regulation 19 consultation will be the first publication of HDC's preferred
strategy and strategic policies, it is highly likely that a considerable number of representations
will be made. HDC has a statutory duty to consider these and, when submitting the Local Plan
for examination, must identify how they have considered them and amended the Plan where
necessary.
2.23 The current timetable and approach of HDC suggests that HDC is not anticipating amending
the Plan following the Regulation 19 consultation. The more common approach is to undertake
a Regulation 18 consultation on the whole draft Local Plan including the preferred strategy for
development, making the necessary amendments, publishing the Regulation 19 Local Plan and
then submitting to the Planning Inspectorate. This process adequately allows for genuine
consultation on the Plan and preferred strategy, providing the collaborative approach required.
ii) Evidence Base
2.24 A Local Plan must be based on 'adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the
economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area' (NPPF Paragraph
158).
2.25 The PPG further states that an appropriate and proportionate evidence base is essential for
producing a sound Local Plan and 'the evidence needs to inform what is in the plan and shape
its development rather than being collected retrospectively' (Reference ID: 12-014-20140306).
The PPG continues to state if approaching submission and key studies are reliant on information
that is a few years old, they should be updated.
2.26 As HDC has been in the process of producing the new Local Plan for over 10 years, the age of
the evidence base documents varies, with some having been published prior to 2010.
2.27 The most recent Infrastructure Study was published in 2009, the SHLAA was undertaken in
2014 and the Employment Land Review was undertaken in 2013.
2.28 Furthermore, the SHMA was published in 2013 considering the 2012-based household
projections and those from preceding years. The 2014-based household projections were
published last year and it is unclear whether HDC has considered these.
2.29 There are concerns over the robustness of the evidence base for the new Local Plan, with some
documents being out-of-date and others not having been published.
iii) Sustainability Appraisal
2.30 The PPG details that every Local Plan must be informed and accompanied by a Sustainability
Appraisal (SA) to allow 'the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of the
proposals to be systematically taken into account, and should play a key role throughout the
plan-making process. The Sustainability Appraisal plays an important part in demonstrating
that the Local Plan reflects sustainability objectives and has considered reasonable
alternatives.' (Reference ID: 12-016-20140306).
2.31 HDC produced and consulted on a SA Scoping Report, with the final version published in
February 2010.
2.32 The SA Scoping Report sets out that 'crucially, the appraisal should be undertaken in parallel
with development of the plan and the appraisal findings should be fed into the emerging plan.
In practice, this means undertaking several rounds - or iterations - of appraisal at different
stages in the plan-making process' (Paragraph 2.2.3).
2.33 The options presented in the Issues and Options consultation document were considered
against the SA criteria, with a SA published alongside the consultation in November 2010.
2.34 The Issues and Options SA set out the assumptions and difficulties in undertaking certain parts
of the appraisal at that stage, including that there were no specific details on the suggested
approach to the overarching principles directing new development and the exact level and type
of employment to be provided was unclear.
2.35 Furthermore, there were no details on the locations where densities could be increased,
whether undeveloped and underused open spaces should be used for development before the
Green Belt, and what role Green Wedges should play in the future development of Harlow.
2.36 The SA Scoping Report sets out that as such, the likely significant effects of these options
could not be appraised at that stage, which is not uncommon for an Issues and Options paper.
It continues to state that 'however, it is important that future iterations of the Core Strategy
are clearer on the approach so to allow the Sustainability Appraisal to appraise their impact'
(paragraph 2.3.18).
2.37 Further uncertainties were identified regarding the impact of the spatial options against the SA
framework, mainly due to a lack of detail regarding the nature of the development for each
option. Greater detail on the exact nature and geographical steer in terms of infilling within
existing development would be required to enable a full assessment of the spatial options
against the SA framework. Although proposed policy areas were identified, details were not
provided at that stage, with these details highlighted as 'instrumental in the determination and
identification of sustainability impacts'.
2.38 A SA is a statutory requirement to accompany a Local Plan which should be used throughout
its development to ensure the Local Plan reflects the sustainability objectives and promotes
sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF.
2.39 Whilst HDC produced a SA Scoping Report and a SA to accompany the Issues and Options
consultation, there has been nothing further published since 2010 in this regard.
2.40 As detailed above, if HDC had published the full Local Plan as part of the Regulation 18
consultation, a SA report could have been published alongside. Instead, the first full SA report
will have to be published alongside the Regulation 19 consultation, allowing limited opportunity
for comments and amendments.

Full text:

See attached file for original document, promotion of site and appendices.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6273

Received: 06/09/2017

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Representation:

PROMOTION OF SITE

See attached file.

Full text:

See attached file for original document, promotion of site and appendices.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6274

Received: 05/09/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

As the Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to
ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all
stages and levels of the local planning process. Therefore we welcome the
opportunity to comment on the draft development management policies. We have
now had the opportunity to review the documents and can provide the following
substantive comments.
General comments
Historic England has published a number of Good Practice Advice and Advice Notes
which you may find useful in developing your local plan. In particular:
Good Practice Advice in Planning 1 - the historic environment in local plans:
<https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa1-historic-environmentlocal-
plans/>
Good Practice Advice in Planning 3 - the setting of heritage assets:
<https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-ofheritage-
assets/gpa3.pdf/>
For the avoidance of doubt, we have not considered archaeological issues in this
brief desk based assessment but would refer you to the HER who should be able to
advise in this regard. We have also not identified non-designated assets.
Paragraph 126 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to set out a positive and clear
strategy for the conservation, enjoyment and enhancement of the historic
environment. Ideally the strategy should offer a strategic overview including
overarching heritage policies to deliver the conservation sand enhancement of the
environment.
A good strategy will offer a positive holistic approach throughout the whole plan
whereby the historic environment is considered not just as a stand-alone topic but as
an integral part of every aspect of the plan, being interwoven within the entire
document. So policies for housing, retail, and transport for example may need to be
tailored to achieve the positive improvements that paragraph 8 of the NPPF
demands. Site allocations may need to refer to the historic environment, identifying
opportunities to conserve and enhance the historic environment, avoid harming
heritage assets and their settings and may also be able to positively address heritage
assets at risk. The plan may need to include areas identified as being inappropriate
for certain types of development due to the impact they would have on the historic
environment.
A good strategy will also be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local
characteristics of the borough and responding accordingly with policies that address
the local situation. We would expect references to the historic environment in the
local plan vision, the inclusion of a policy/ies for the historic environment and
character of the landscape and built environment, and various other references to the
historic environment through the plan relating to the unique characteristics of the
area.
Further opportunity should be sought to address the historic environment in every
aspect of the Plan and to make the strategy more spatially specific and unique to
Harlow.

Full text:

As the Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to
ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all
stages and levels of the local planning process. Therefore we welcome the
opportunity to comment on the draft development management policies. We have
now had the opportunity to review the documents and can provide the following
substantive comments.

General comments
Historic England has published a number of Good Practice Advice and Advice Notes
which you may find useful in developing your local plan. In particular:
Good Practice Advice in Planning 1 - the historic environment in local plans:
<https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa1-historic-environmentlocal-
plans/>

Good Practice Advice in Planning 3 - the setting of heritage assets:
<https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-ofheritage-
assets/gpa3.pdf/>

For the avoidance of doubt, we have not considered archaeological issues in this
brief desk based assessment but would refer you to the HER who should be able to
advise in this regard. We have also not identified non-designated assets.
Paragraph 126 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to set out a positive and clear
strategy for the conservation, enjoyment and enhancement of the historic
environment. Ideally the strategy should offer a strategic overview including
overarching heritage policies to deliver the conservation sand enhancement of the
environment.

A good strategy will offer a positive holistic approach throughout the whole plan
whereby the historic environment is considered not just as a stand-alone topic but as
an integral part of every aspect of the plan, being interwoven within the entire
document. So policies for housing, retail, and transport for example may need to be
tailored to achieve the positive improvements that paragraph 8 of the NPPF
demands. Site allocations may need to refer to the historic environment, identifying
opportunities to conserve and enhance the historic environment, avoid harming
heritage assets and their settings and may also be able to positively address heritage
assets at risk. The plan may need to include areas identified as being inappropriate
for certain types of development due to the impact they would have on the historic
environment.

A good strategy will also be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local
characteristics of the borough and responding accordingly with policies that address
the local situation. We would expect references to the historic environment in the
local plan vision, the inclusion of a policy/ies for the historic environment and
character of the landscape and built environment, and various other references to the
historic environment through the plan relating to the unique characteristics of the
area.

Further opportunity should be sought to address the historic environment in every
aspect of the Plan and to make the strategy more spatially specific and unique to
Harlow.

Comments on draft Local Plan development management policies

Chapter 2: Placeshaping

We welcome the reference to the historic environment in paragraph 2.1 of the
supporting text. Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 helpfully go on to concisely explain the
character and nature of Harlow's New Town heritage, and highlight the importance of
non-designated buildings and structures which are of local interest which contribute
to the distinct character and heritage of the area.

It is recommended that the word "heritage" is replaced with the term "historic
environment" in objective 2 of the Local Plan Strategic Objectives in paragraph 2.5.
The term "historic environment" is a more all-encompassing term which demonstrates
consideration of non-designated heritage assets and intangible cultural heritage. This
applies throughout the Plan policies.

Policy PL1: Design Principles for Development

We support the inclusion of an overarching design principles policy. The need for
development to protect or enhance local distinctiveness and to have regard for
historic significance is welcomed. It is however recommended that the part b is
amended to refer simply to the "historic environment" rather than to "features of local
and historic significance". The acknowledgement in the policy to locally listed or
significant building is supported but this would also be captured under the wider
umbrella term "historic environment".

Policy PL3: Sustainable Design, Construction and Energy Use

We welcome the inclusion of a policy for sustainable construction, design and energy
use. However, as currently drafted the policy makes no specific reference to the
historic environment or to visual impact and setting. This policy is likely to refer to
new build developments only, but that is not clear and could be interpreted as
applying to all developments of all scales. The use of modern construction
techniques on a listed building, for example, may detrimentally affect existing historic
fabric elsewhere in the building therefore risking damage to the heritage asset
contrary to the objective of the NPPF to conserve and enhance the historic
environment. Listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and scheduled
monuments are exempted from the need to comply with energy efficiency
requirements of the Building Regulations where compliance would unacceptably alter
their character or appearance. Special considerations under Part L of the Building
Regulations are also given to locally listed buildings, buildings of architectural or
historic interest within registered parks and gardens and the curtilages of scheduled
monuments, and buildings of traditional construction with permeable fabric that both
absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture. It is recommended that the
policy is clarified as at this stage as it's remit is unclear to prospective applicants and
decision makers.

Policy PL5: Other Open Spaces

We welcome the reference to the urban design principles of the town.

Policy PL7: Green Infrastructure and Landscaping

We would recommend that the policy is amended to refer to the function that Green
Infrastructure can have in enhancing and conserving the historic environment. The
policy in its current draft only refers to the enhancement of landscape character, it is
suggested that the historic environment is also considered here. Green Infrastructure
can be used to improve the setting of heritage assets and to improve access to it,
likewise heritage assets can help contribute to the quality of green spaces by helping
to create a sense of place and tangible link with history.

Policy PL11: Heritage Assets and their Settings

Reference to the setting of heritage assets within the headline of the policy and within
the body of the policy itself is welcomed. Reference to the irreplaceable nature of
heritage assets in the supporting text is also welcomed. The policy however, provides
no recognition of the potential for development to enhance or better reveal the
significance of heritage assets.

The supporting text in paragraph 2.83 should be expanded upon to refer to the need
to consult Historic England on proposals which affect grade II* or grade I listed
buildings or their setting, as well as other developments outlined within tables 1 and 2
(requirement to notify or consult with Historic England) within paragraphs 57 and 58
of the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).

There is concern regarding the supporting text in paragraph 2.74 which states that,
"The purpose of this policy is to protect the features and characteristics for which
designated and non-designated heritage assets were selected". It would be more
appropriate to state that, "The purpose of this policy is to protect the significance of
heritage assets". The wording in its current form could be misleading and imply that
only aspects of the heritage assets noted in list descriptions are worthy of
conservation. The list descriptions are for identification purposes only and the
designation generally covers all aspects of the heritage asset and whilst the reasons
why a heritage asset was designated can be a useful starting point for defining
significance it is not all that is considered. For the purposes of decision making,
paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that local authorities should require applicant to
provide a statement of significance. Paragraph 129 states that local authorities
should then identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that
may be affected by a particular proposal. The assessment of significance happened
during the assessment of a site specific application.

Paragraph 2.83 of the supporting text states that a heritage statement should be
submitted where planning permission is required for alterations or additions to listed
and locally listed buildings. It should be noted that a heritage statement should be
provided stand-alone listed building consent application as well. The need for a
heritage statement should be mentioned as a criterion in the policy itself and not only
in the supporting text.

Paragraph 2.88 relates to archaeology and outlines the need for a desk based
assessment or field evaluation to be submitted where proposals affect sites or are
adjacent to sites of known archaeological interest or sites where there is reason to
suggest there is archaeological interest. This is welcomed but is not included in the
policy itself. It recommended that the policy is amended to secure this requirement.

Policy PL12: Enabling development of Heritage Assets and their Settings

A policy which seeks to address heritage at risk is welcomed, however this policy on
enabling development is not the best way to achieve this. The policy reflects
paragraph 140 of the NPPF but is written to apply to only heritage at risk which is
more restrictive than the NPPF. By definition in the NPPF, enabling development is
development that is not otherwise in accordance with adopted policy and is therefore
not a necessary component of a local plan document. A stand-alone policy on
enabling development is not necessary as it covered entirely by the NPPF and
should be applied on a case by case basis depending on the merits of a particular
proposal rather than as part of the Plan. A local plan should adequately set out a
positive strategy for the historic environment without the need to include such a
policy. It is advised that a policy on heritage at risk rather than enabling development
would better achieve the desired outcome.

PL13: Advertisements

It is recommended that the "historic environment" is used rather than "heritage
assets" in part (a) of the policy. It is recommended that part (d) is expanded upon to
include reference to lighting and the effect that illuminated advertisements can have
on the character of the surrounding area. It would also be useful if the policy included
a provision which addressed the removal of redundant advertisements in order to
reduce visual clutter and improve the quality of the surrounding visual environment.

The draft Plan does not contain a policy which relates to shopfronts. The retention of
significant shopfront elements is often integral to the character of retail frontages and
that of the wider street scene, especially where they are characteristic of Harlow's
particular architectural style. It is noted that the Harlow Design Guide SPD (Oct 2011)
contains design principles regarding shopfronts but the SPD's objectives would be
strengthened if there was a Local Plan policy in place in order to manage their
change successfully.

Chapter 3: Housing

The capacity for the area to accommodate new housing development whilst
maintaining its historic environment should be a key consideration, so that the quality
and character of neighbourhoods, towns and villages is conserved. Integrating
consideration of the historic environment into plan making alongside other
considerations is a key principle of sustainable development. Where less successful
neighbourhoods are proposed for redevelopment opportunities for enhancement
should be a priority.

Policy H2: Residential Development

It is recommended that the historic environment is listed as an aspect for
consideration in part (a). It is recommended that the supporting makes reference to
the positive contribution open spaces and gardens can make a positive contribution
to the character of an area and to the its distinctive townscape.

Policy H7: Residential Annexes

It is recommended that this policy requires development to have regard to the
character of the surrounding area, it is noted that this is referred to in the supporting
text but only in the context of intensification of use and not in the implications for the
physical environment.

Policy H10: Traveller's Pitches and Plots

We welcome the policy provision which requires development consider that the
character of the locality but recommend that the historic environment is also listed as
a consideration in part (a).

Chapter 4: Prosperity

Policy PR1: Development within Employment Areas

This policy is based on Sir Fredrick Gibberd's design for Harlow Town which
separated land uses. Consideration of the designed town and its distinct plan should
help preserve its historic interest.

Chapter 6: Infrastructure

All proposed infrastructure schemes should take into consideration theirs impacts on
heritage assets and their setting alongside archaeological potential.

Policy IN4: Broadband and Development

It is recommended that part (a) is amended to refer to both the natural and built
environment rather than simply "environment".

Policy IN5: Telecommunications Equipment
We would request that this policy is amended have regard to the wider townscape
and historic environment. The siting and location of telecommunications equipment
can affect the appearance of the public realm and wider streetscene, the
consideration of their positioning is therefore important, particularly in conservation
areas.

Conclusion

Please note that absence of a comment on an allocation or document in this letter
does not mean that Historic England is content that the allocation or document forms
part of a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic
environment or is devoid of historic environment issues.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided
by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our
obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals,
which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse
effect upon the historic environment. We hope that the above comments of
assistance.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6291

Received: 05/09/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

Please note that absence of a comment on an allocation or document in this letter
does not mean that Historic England is content that the allocation or document forms
part of a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic
environment or is devoid of historic environment issues.
Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided
by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our
obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals,
which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse
effect upon the historic environment. We hope that the above comments of
assistance.

Full text:

As the Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to
ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all
stages and levels of the local planning process. Therefore we welcome the
opportunity to comment on the draft development management policies. We have
now had the opportunity to review the documents and can provide the following
substantive comments.

General comments
Historic England has published a number of Good Practice Advice and Advice Notes
which you may find useful in developing your local plan. In particular:
Good Practice Advice in Planning 1 - the historic environment in local plans:
<https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa1-historic-environmentlocal-
plans/>

Good Practice Advice in Planning 3 - the setting of heritage assets:
<https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-ofheritage-
assets/gpa3.pdf/>

For the avoidance of doubt, we have not considered archaeological issues in this
brief desk based assessment but would refer you to the HER who should be able to
advise in this regard. We have also not identified non-designated assets.
Paragraph 126 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to set out a positive and clear
strategy for the conservation, enjoyment and enhancement of the historic
environment. Ideally the strategy should offer a strategic overview including
overarching heritage policies to deliver the conservation sand enhancement of the
environment.

A good strategy will offer a positive holistic approach throughout the whole plan
whereby the historic environment is considered not just as a stand-alone topic but as
an integral part of every aspect of the plan, being interwoven within the entire
document. So policies for housing, retail, and transport for example may need to be
tailored to achieve the positive improvements that paragraph 8 of the NPPF
demands. Site allocations may need to refer to the historic environment, identifying
opportunities to conserve and enhance the historic environment, avoid harming
heritage assets and their settings and may also be able to positively address heritage
assets at risk. The plan may need to include areas identified as being inappropriate
for certain types of development due to the impact they would have on the historic
environment.

A good strategy will also be spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local
characteristics of the borough and responding accordingly with policies that address
the local situation. We would expect references to the historic environment in the
local plan vision, the inclusion of a policy/ies for the historic environment and
character of the landscape and built environment, and various other references to the
historic environment through the plan relating to the unique characteristics of the
area.

Further opportunity should be sought to address the historic environment in every
aspect of the Plan and to make the strategy more spatially specific and unique to
Harlow.

Comments on draft Local Plan development management policies

Chapter 2: Placeshaping

We welcome the reference to the historic environment in paragraph 2.1 of the
supporting text. Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 helpfully go on to concisely explain the
character and nature of Harlow's New Town heritage, and highlight the importance of
non-designated buildings and structures which are of local interest which contribute
to the distinct character and heritage of the area.

It is recommended that the word "heritage" is replaced with the term "historic
environment" in objective 2 of the Local Plan Strategic Objectives in paragraph 2.5.
The term "historic environment" is a more all-encompassing term which demonstrates
consideration of non-designated heritage assets and intangible cultural heritage. This
applies throughout the Plan policies.

Policy PL1: Design Principles for Development

We support the inclusion of an overarching design principles policy. The need for
development to protect or enhance local distinctiveness and to have regard for
historic significance is welcomed. It is however recommended that the part b is
amended to refer simply to the "historic environment" rather than to "features of local
and historic significance". The acknowledgement in the policy to locally listed or
significant building is supported but this would also be captured under the wider
umbrella term "historic environment".

Policy PL3: Sustainable Design, Construction and Energy Use

We welcome the inclusion of a policy for sustainable construction, design and energy
use. However, as currently drafted the policy makes no specific reference to the
historic environment or to visual impact and setting. This policy is likely to refer to
new build developments only, but that is not clear and could be interpreted as
applying to all developments of all scales. The use of modern construction
techniques on a listed building, for example, may detrimentally affect existing historic
fabric elsewhere in the building therefore risking damage to the heritage asset
contrary to the objective of the NPPF to conserve and enhance the historic
environment. Listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and scheduled
monuments are exempted from the need to comply with energy efficiency
requirements of the Building Regulations where compliance would unacceptably alter
their character or appearance. Special considerations under Part L of the Building
Regulations are also given to locally listed buildings, buildings of architectural or
historic interest within registered parks and gardens and the curtilages of scheduled
monuments, and buildings of traditional construction with permeable fabric that both
absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture. It is recommended that the
policy is clarified as at this stage as it's remit is unclear to prospective applicants and
decision makers.

Policy PL5: Other Open Spaces

We welcome the reference to the urban design principles of the town.

Policy PL7: Green Infrastructure and Landscaping

We would recommend that the policy is amended to refer to the function that Green
Infrastructure can have in enhancing and conserving the historic environment. The
policy in its current draft only refers to the enhancement of landscape character, it is
suggested that the historic environment is also considered here. Green Infrastructure
can be used to improve the setting of heritage assets and to improve access to it,
likewise heritage assets can help contribute to the quality of green spaces by helping
to create a sense of place and tangible link with history.

Policy PL11: Heritage Assets and their Settings

Reference to the setting of heritage assets within the headline of the policy and within
the body of the policy itself is welcomed. Reference to the irreplaceable nature of
heritage assets in the supporting text is also welcomed. The policy however, provides
no recognition of the potential for development to enhance or better reveal the
significance of heritage assets.

The supporting text in paragraph 2.83 should be expanded upon to refer to the need
to consult Historic England on proposals which affect grade II* or grade I listed
buildings or their setting, as well as other developments outlined within tables 1 and 2
(requirement to notify or consult with Historic England) within paragraphs 57 and 58
of the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).

There is concern regarding the supporting text in paragraph 2.74 which states that,
"The purpose of this policy is to protect the features and characteristics for which
designated and non-designated heritage assets were selected". It would be more
appropriate to state that, "The purpose of this policy is to protect the significance of
heritage assets". The wording in its current form could be misleading and imply that
only aspects of the heritage assets noted in list descriptions are worthy of
conservation. The list descriptions are for identification purposes only and the
designation generally covers all aspects of the heritage asset and whilst the reasons
why a heritage asset was designated can be a useful starting point for defining
significance it is not all that is considered. For the purposes of decision making,
paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that local authorities should require applicant to
provide a statement of significance. Paragraph 129 states that local authorities
should then identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that
may be affected by a particular proposal. The assessment of significance happened
during the assessment of a site specific application.

Paragraph 2.83 of the supporting text states that a heritage statement should be
submitted where planning permission is required for alterations or additions to listed
and locally listed buildings. It should be noted that a heritage statement should be
provided stand-alone listed building consent application as well. The need for a
heritage statement should be mentioned as a criterion in the policy itself and not only
in the supporting text.

Paragraph 2.88 relates to archaeology and outlines the need for a desk based
assessment or field evaluation to be submitted where proposals affect sites or are
adjacent to sites of known archaeological interest or sites where there is reason to
suggest there is archaeological interest. This is welcomed but is not included in the
policy itself. It recommended that the policy is amended to secure this requirement.

Policy PL12: Enabling development of Heritage Assets and their Settings

A policy which seeks to address heritage at risk is welcomed, however this policy on
enabling development is not the best way to achieve this. The policy reflects
paragraph 140 of the NPPF but is written to apply to only heritage at risk which is
more restrictive than the NPPF. By definition in the NPPF, enabling development is
development that is not otherwise in accordance with adopted policy and is therefore
not a necessary component of a local plan document. A stand-alone policy on
enabling development is not necessary as it covered entirely by the NPPF and
should be applied on a case by case basis depending on the merits of a particular
proposal rather than as part of the Plan. A local plan should adequately set out a
positive strategy for the historic environment without the need to include such a
policy. It is advised that a policy on heritage at risk rather than enabling development
would better achieve the desired outcome.

PL13: Advertisements

It is recommended that the "historic environment" is used rather than "heritage
assets" in part (a) of the policy. It is recommended that part (d) is expanded upon to
include reference to lighting and the effect that illuminated advertisements can have
on the character of the surrounding area. It would also be useful if the policy included
a provision which addressed the removal of redundant advertisements in order to
reduce visual clutter and improve the quality of the surrounding visual environment.

The draft Plan does not contain a policy which relates to shopfronts. The retention of
significant shopfront elements is often integral to the character of retail frontages and
that of the wider street scene, especially where they are characteristic of Harlow's
particular architectural style. It is noted that the Harlow Design Guide SPD (Oct 2011)
contains design principles regarding shopfronts but the SPD's objectives would be
strengthened if there was a Local Plan policy in place in order to manage their
change successfully.

Chapter 3: Housing

The capacity for the area to accommodate new housing development whilst
maintaining its historic environment should be a key consideration, so that the quality
and character of neighbourhoods, towns and villages is conserved. Integrating
consideration of the historic environment into plan making alongside other
considerations is a key principle of sustainable development. Where less successful
neighbourhoods are proposed for redevelopment opportunities for enhancement
should be a priority.

Policy H2: Residential Development

It is recommended that the historic environment is listed as an aspect for
consideration in part (a). It is recommended that the supporting makes reference to
the positive contribution open spaces and gardens can make a positive contribution
to the character of an area and to the its distinctive townscape.

Policy H7: Residential Annexes

It is recommended that this policy requires development to have regard to the
character of the surrounding area, it is noted that this is referred to in the supporting
text but only in the context of intensification of use and not in the implications for the
physical environment.

Policy H10: Traveller's Pitches and Plots

We welcome the policy provision which requires development consider that the
character of the locality but recommend that the historic environment is also listed as
a consideration in part (a).

Chapter 4: Prosperity

Policy PR1: Development within Employment Areas

This policy is based on Sir Fredrick Gibberd's design for Harlow Town which
separated land uses. Consideration of the designed town and its distinct plan should
help preserve its historic interest.

Chapter 6: Infrastructure

All proposed infrastructure schemes should take into consideration theirs impacts on
heritage assets and their setting alongside archaeological potential.

Policy IN4: Broadband and Development

It is recommended that part (a) is amended to refer to both the natural and built
environment rather than simply "environment".

Policy IN5: Telecommunications Equipment
We would request that this policy is amended have regard to the wider townscape
and historic environment. The siting and location of telecommunications equipment
can affect the appearance of the public realm and wider streetscene, the
consideration of their positioning is therefore important, particularly in conservation
areas.

Conclusion

Please note that absence of a comment on an allocation or document in this letter
does not mean that Historic England is content that the allocation or document forms
part of a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic
environment or is devoid of historic environment issues.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided
by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our
obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals,
which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse
effect upon the historic environment. We hope that the above comments of
assistance.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6297

Received: 07/09/2017

Respondent: Dr Roger Bamford

Representation:

The document is well laid-out, clear and professional. However it is very disappointing that the council has not yet published the strategic policies. It is most peculiar that the more detailed development management policies have been published first. The council is treading on dodgy ground by not having a 'preferred options' consultation. I, for one, will object to the soundness of the plan if we are not allowed to comment on preferred options.

Full text:

The document is well laid-out, clear and professional. However it is very disappointing that the council has not yet published the strategic policies. It is most peculiar that the more detailed development management policies have been published first. The council is treading on dodgy ground by not having a 'preferred options' consultation. I, for one, will object to the soundness of the plan if we are not allowed to comment on preferred options.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6303

Received: 06/09/2017

Respondent: EFA

Representation:

Submission of the Education and Skills Funding Agency
1. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of planning policy at the local level.
2. The ESFA, launched on 1st April 2017, brings together the existing responsibilities of the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) to create a single funding agency accountable for funding education and training for children, young people and adults. The ESFA are accountable for £61 billion of funding a year for the education and training sector, including support for all state-provided education for 8 million children aged 3 to 16, and 1.6 million young people aged 16 to 19.
3. Under the provisions of the Education Act 2011 and the Academies Act 2010, all new state schools are now academies/free schools and the ESFA is the delivery body for many of these, rather than local education authorities. As such, we aim to work closely with local authority education departments and planning authorities to meet the demand for new school places and new schools. In this capacity, we would like to offer the following comments in response to the proposals outlined in the above consultation document.

Full text:

Submission of the Education and Skills Funding Agency
1. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of planning policy at the local level.
2. The ESFA, launched on 1st April 2017, brings together the existing responsibilities of the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) to create a single funding agency accountable for funding education and training for children, young people and adults. The ESFA are accountable for £61 billion of funding a year for the education and training sector, including support for all state-provided education for 8 million children aged 3 to 16, and 1.6 million young people aged 16 to 19.
3. Under the provisions of the Education Act 2011 and the Academies Act 2010, all new state schools are now academies/free schools and the ESFA is the delivery body for many of these, rather than local education authorities. As such, we aim to work closely with local authority education departments and planning authorities to meet the demand for new school places and new schools. In this capacity, we would like to offer the following comments in response to the proposals outlined in the above consultation document.
General Comments on the Local Plan Approach to New Schools
4. The draft Development Management Policies includes limited content relating to the provision of schools. However, this is to be expected as this issue is generally addressed in strategic policies and site allocations, which the ESFA understands will be included in the next round of Local Plan consultation early in 2018.
5. Essex County Council's recently published 10 year plan for meeting the demand for school places indicates that, based on existing plans for growth, there will be a need for 1078 additional primary school places and 1635 secondary school places over the next ten years. However, there are already plans in place to help to address this need, including a new 8FE secondary free school (Sir Frederick Gibberd College, Burnt Mill Academy Trust) and a new 2FE primary school (Essex Newhall school, Reach2 Academy Trust). The requirement for school places may increase once the latest housing target for Harlow is confirmed. The Local Plan will need to be 'positively prepared' to meet the objectively assessed development needs and infrastructure requirements.
6. In light of the above and the Duty to Cooperate on strategic priorities such as community infrastructure (NPPF para 156) , the ESFA encourages close working with local authorities during all stages of planning policy development to help guide the development of new school infrastructure and to meet the predicted demand for primary and secondary school places. Please add the ESFA to your list of relevant organisations with which you engage in preparation of the plan.
7. With regard to planning positively for new schools, the ESFA commends, for example, the approach taken by the London Borough of Ealing in producing a Planning for Schools Development Plan Document (DPD) . The DPD provides policy direction and establishes the Council's approach to providing primary and secondary school places and helps to identify sites which may be suitable for providing them (including, where necessary and justified, on Green Belt/MOL), whether by extension to existing schools or on new sites. The DPD includes site allocations as well as policies to safeguard the sites and assist implementation and was adopted in May 2016 as part of the Local Plan. The DPD may provide useful guidance with respect to an evidence based approach to planning for new schools in the emerging Harlow Local Plan, securing site allocations for schools as well as providing example policies to aid delivery through Development Management policies.
8. A strategic infrastructure policy within the Local Plan could usefully highlight some wider infrastructure planning principles, including:
- A commitment to work with infrastructure providers to ensure the necessary infrastructure is provided to support development and meet need;
- The need to coordinate development and infrastructure provision to ensure development is supported by the timely provision of adequate infrastructure;
- A requirement for all development to safeguard the requirements of infrastructure providers, including education facilities.
9. Ensuring there is an adequate supply of sites for schools is essential and will ensure that Harlow can swiftly and flexibly respond to the existing and future need for school places to meet the needs of the district over the plan period.
Developer contributions
10. The key policy included in the document relating to planning for schools is policy IN6 Planning obligations. The establishment of the central principle that "Planning permission will only be granted for development if the provision is secured for related infrastructure, affordable housing, services, facilities...which are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms..." is supported. The ESFA requests that this policy explicitly refers to schools here as a key type of infrastructure that tends to be secured via s106, especially where new schools are required to support housing growth.
11. The explanation of onsite and offsite contributions is also useful: "Where it can be demonstrated that provision on site is not feasible then provision elsewhere, or a contribution towards this provision, will be required."
12. The ESFA is aware that Essex County Council has a model infrastructure policy that they are encouraging all Essex local planning authorities to adopt. Harlow Council should have regard to this in developing the next version of policy IN6.
13. One of the tests of soundness is that a Local Plan is 'effective' i.e. the plan should be deliverable over its period. In this context and with specific regard to planning for schools, there is a need to ensure that education contributions made by developers are sufficient to deliver the additional school places required to meet the increase in demand generated by new developments. The ESFA note that Essex County Council has produced a Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (revised 2016) that includes an explanation of contributions towards expanding existing schools and creating new schools. It would be helpful and relevant for this document to be referenced within the Local Plan in the section alongside policy IN6.
14. The explicit recognition of education facilities alongside other types of infrastructure and services that development can create a need for is welcomed (para 6.3).
15. Paragraph 6.4 states that "Requirements for individual developments will depend on the nature of the proposals, specific site circumstances and on the requirements laid out in any adopted SPDs". The ESFA notes that further guidance will be set out in a Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document. The ESFA request that this document clearly sets out how contributions towards expanding existing schools and developing new schools will be calculated, using an evidence based child yield figure for new developments and up to date information on costs (with clearly identified evidence sources).
16. The ESFA would be interested in responding to any draft Planning Obligations SPD, review of infrastructure requirements or proposed CIL. As such, please add the ESFA to the database for future CIL/infrastructure consultations.
Evidence Base
17. An up to date Infrastructure Delivery Plan that draws on the Harlow Infrastructure Study (2010) and provides clarity about what infrastructure will be required when and how it will be funded will clearly be an important evidence base document for the Local Plan. As part of the development of a complete draft of the Local Plan it would be useful if a background/topic paper could also be developed setting out clearly how the forecast housing growth at allocated sites has been translated (via an evidence based pupil yield calculation) into an identified need for specific numbers of school places and new schools at different times, expanding on the information in an Infrastructure Delivery Plan and site specific policies. This could also reference Essex County Council's recently published 10 year plan for meeting the demand for school places. This would help to demonstrate clearly that the approach to the planning and delivery of education infrastructure is justified based on proportionate evidence. If required, the ESFA can assist in providing good practice examples of background documents relevant to this stage of your emerging Plan.


Conclusion
18. Finally, I hope the above comments are helpful in shaping Harlow's Local Plan, with specific regard to the provision of land for new schools. Please advise the ESFA of any proposed changes to the emerging Local Plan policies, supporting text and/or evidence base arising from these comments.
19. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this response. The ESFA looks forward to continuing to work with Harlow Council to aid in the preparation of the Local Plan.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6307

Received: 07/09/2017

Respondent: Miller Homes

Agent: Andrew Martin - Planning

Representation:

In summary, our client requests that all future consultations present the Local Plan as a whole.

Full text:

Andrew Martin - Planning Ltd (AM-P) acts on behalf of Miller Homes, who control 251 hectares of land at East Harlow. This land is being promoted for a sustainable urban extension to Harlow and could accommodate up to 3,600 new dwellings (i.e. comprising up to 2,600 in Harlow District and up to 1,000 in Epping Forest District), along with a broad range of supporting uses and infrastructure.

Our client is pleased generally to see that Harlow District Council (HDC) is progressing with its new Local Plan, but has concerns about HDC's decision to consult on its Development Management Policies ahead of the Spatial Strategy, Strategic Policies and Site Allocations.

Paragraphs 154 to 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) direct that local plans should:

(i) set out the opportunities for development and clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where;
(ii) set out the strategic priorities for the area, including strategic policies;
(iii) indicate broad locations for strategic development on a key diagram and land-use designations on a proposals map; and
(iv) allocate sites to promote development and flexible use of land, bringing forward new land where necessary, and provide detail on form, scale, access and quantum of development, where appropriate.

Although HDC intends to publish a full Regulation 19 draft of its Local Plan in January 2018, including the Strategic Policies and Site Allocations, the current consultation on the Development Management Policies only does not accord with the requirements in the NPPF and basically puts the cart before the horse. This could be significant because there is no way of knowing whether the Development Management Policies are "justified" (i.e. the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives) and "effective" (i.e. deliverable over the plan period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities), and therefore whether they comply with the test of soundness at paragraph 182 of the NPPF, without being able to review concurrently the Spatial Strategy, Strategic Policies and Site Allocations.

The Development Management Policies are also integral to the viability and deliverability of the Local Plan as a whole. For example, there is no way of knowing whether a minimum of 30% affordable housing provision (as required by Policy H8) will be viable on key development sites, without being able to assess the quantum of development, location of development and other policy burdens set out in the Strategic Policies and Site Allocations.

In summary, our client requests that all future consultations present the Local Plan as a whole.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6308

Received: 06/09/2017

Respondent: Jean Wright

Representation:

Having commented in previous years on the Local Plan I was left, after looking at the document, feeling disappointed as this is a policy document with no detail. It is the briefest of documents.
As a resident I feel none the wiser about Harlow's future development.
I feel unable to comment.

Full text:

Having commented in previous years on the Local Plan I was left, after looking at the document, feeling disappointed as this is a policy document with no detail. It is the briefest of documents.
As a resident I feel none the wiser about Harlow's future development.
I feel unable to comment.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6323

Received: 07/09/2017

Respondent: Quod Planning

Representation:

a) Gilston Area
As the Council will be aware Places for People, alongside City & Provincial Properties, are working with East Herts District Council (EHDC) to secure an allocation for 10,000 homes at the Gilston Area. The Gilston Area is currently identified as a Site Allocation in the Pre-Submission draft of the East Herts District Plan (November 2016). This was submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 March 2017 and the independent examination is due to start on 3 October 2017.
As recognised in the evidence base to the EHDC District Plan, the Gilston Area will provide a full range of residential properties, both private and affordable, to assist in meeting the housing needs of East Herts, and also contributes toward the economic regeneration of Harlow.
Paragraph 11.1.3 of the draft EHDC District Plan states "As well as providing benefits to East Herts, the development will support the regeneration of Harlow by helping to draw investment to the town and enhance its economic performance."
In delivering the Gilston Area development, Places for People are keen to support the regeneration of Harlow. This will include the indirect benefits of growth at the Gilston Area (e.g. investment and spending from the residents of the 10,000 homes being drawn into Harlow), and there will also be direct benefits in the form of highway improvements including the proposed Central and (likely Eastern) Stort Crossings.
Detailed designs for the crossings are currently being prepared by Places for People in consultation with the two county highway authorities. These enhancements will deliver significant strategic improvements to the transport network across the greater Harlow area, and directly assist Harlow's wider aspirations for residential and economic growth.
In order to correctly reflect the published evidence base, as well as have due regard to the advanced progress of the East Herts District Plan, the Development Management Policies document should specifically recognise the role and importance of the Gilston Area in supporting the Local Plan's strategic objectives, especially those set out in the Prosperity chapter.

Full text:

a) Gilston Area
As the Council will be aware Places for People, alongside City & Provincial Properties, are working with East Herts District Council (EHDC) to secure an allocation for 10,000 homes at the Gilston Area. The Gilston Area is currently identified as a Site Allocation in the Pre-Submission draft of the East Herts District Plan (November 2016). This was submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 March 2017 and the independent examination is due to start on 3 October 2017.
As recognised in the evidence base to the EHDC District Plan, the Gilston Area will provide a full range of residential properties, both private and affordable, to assist in meeting the housing needs of East Herts, and also contributes toward the economic regeneration of Harlow.
Paragraph 11.1.3 of the draft EHDC District Plan states "As well as providing benefits to East Herts, the development will support the regeneration of Harlow by helping to draw investment to the town and enhance its economic performance."
In delivering the Gilston Area development, Places for People are keen to support the regeneration of Harlow. This will include the indirect benefits of growth at the Gilston Area (e.g. investment and spending from the residents of the 10,000 homes being drawn into Harlow), and there will also be direct benefits in the form of highway improvements including the proposed Central and (likely Eastern) Stort Crossings.
Detailed designs for the crossings are currently being prepared by Places for People in consultation with the two county highway authorities. These enhancements will deliver significant strategic improvements to the transport network across the greater Harlow area, and directly assist Harlow's wider aspirations for residential and economic growth.
In order to correctly reflect the published evidence base, as well as have due regard to the advanced progress of the East Herts District Plan, the Development Management Policies document should specifically recognise the role and importance of the Gilston Area in supporting the Local Plan's strategic objectives, especially those set out in the Prosperity chapter.
b) Policy Specific Comments
Linked to the strategic matter raised above, Places for People also have some comments on specific aspects of the draft policies related, which are set out below.
Policy PL4: Green Wedges and Green Fingers
The Central and Eastern Stort Crossings will play an important role in facilitating Harlow's growth and it is important that the Development Management document supports their delivery.
Policy PL4 should be re-worded to recognise and support the delivery of the crossings within a specific part of the Stort Valley green wedge. This would be consistent with EHDC's draft Policy GA2 (The River Stort Crossings) which states that "The Council will work with key stakeholders including Hertfordshire County Council, Essex County Council, Harlow Council, Hertfordshire LEP, and others as appropriate, to facilitate the delivery of the following transport improvements to crossings of the River Stort...".
The policy should also recognise that the introduction of improved public transport corridors may require a balance to be drawn between the benefits of changing modes of travel and existing green spaces and landscaping.
Policy PL10: Water Quality, Water Management, Flooding and Sustainable Drainage Systems
Places for People would like to work closely with Harlow Council on the final content of this policy to ensure its criteria do not inadvertently prejudice the delivery of the two proposed crossings across the Stort Valley.
Housing
The development of 10,000 homes at the Gilston Area will support the housing and economic needs of Harlow. By providing a wide range of private and affordable homes to rent or buy, the Gilston Area will help attract and retain skilled workers. Many of these will work in Harlow and provide the more diverse local workforce which has been identified as critical to developing the Harlow economy. The contribution that this will make should be recognised in the opening paragraphs of Chapter 3 which focus solely on the 9,200 homes to be delivered in Harlow.
Homes at the Gilston Area will also help rebalance the local housing mix. This is particularly true for the Harlow wards adjacent to East Herts which, whilst having high levels of social rented provision, offer very few intermediate options and limited professionally managed private rented homes.
Given the above, we suggest that an additional paragraph is added under the Implementation text of policy H8 (affordable housing) stating that:
"Major sites outside the district, including the Gilston Area in East Herts, also have an important role in diversifying the existing housing market and supporting economic aims. These sites could provide a wide range of types and tenures of home, informed by site-specific evidence and ensuring that there is a balanced mix of sustainable and high-quality homes across the West Essex and Hertfordshire HMA".
Infrastructure
Places for People will be sponsoring the applications for the Central and Eastern Crossings, and will if necessary be providing the forward funding to ensure their delivery. However, the Crossings are required to meet existing demand and to accommodate the planned growth of Harlow and the wider area. The Infrastructure Chapter should include a policy that makes it clear that development that benefits from the Crossings and other strategic infrastructure should make appropriate contributions either by way of planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy payments.
A series of other comments on the Infrastructure chapter are set out at Annex 1 to this letter.
c) Summary
Places for People welcome the opportunity to continue to engage with Harlow District Council on the evolution of Harlow's Local Development Plan, particularly as the detail on the proposals for the Gilston Area, and Central and Eastern Stort Crossings, continues to progress.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6329

Received: 07/09/2017

Respondent: Quod Planning

Representation:

Places for People welcome the opportunity to continue to engage with Harlow District Council on the evolution of Harlow's Local Development Plan, particularly as the detail on the proposals for the Gilston Area, and Central and Eastern Stort Crossings, continues to progress.

Full text:

a) Gilston Area
As the Council will be aware Places for People, alongside City & Provincial Properties, are working with East Herts District Council (EHDC) to secure an allocation for 10,000 homes at the Gilston Area. The Gilston Area is currently identified as a Site Allocation in the Pre-Submission draft of the East Herts District Plan (November 2016). This was submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 March 2017 and the independent examination is due to start on 3 October 2017.
As recognised in the evidence base to the EHDC District Plan, the Gilston Area will provide a full range of residential properties, both private and affordable, to assist in meeting the housing needs of East Herts, and also contributes toward the economic regeneration of Harlow.
Paragraph 11.1.3 of the draft EHDC District Plan states "As well as providing benefits to East Herts, the development will support the regeneration of Harlow by helping to draw investment to the town and enhance its economic performance."
In delivering the Gilston Area development, Places for People are keen to support the regeneration of Harlow. This will include the indirect benefits of growth at the Gilston Area (e.g. investment and spending from the residents of the 10,000 homes being drawn into Harlow), and there will also be direct benefits in the form of highway improvements including the proposed Central and (likely Eastern) Stort Crossings.
Detailed designs for the crossings are currently being prepared by Places for People in consultation with the two county highway authorities. These enhancements will deliver significant strategic improvements to the transport network across the greater Harlow area, and directly assist Harlow's wider aspirations for residential and economic growth.
In order to correctly reflect the published evidence base, as well as have due regard to the advanced progress of the East Herts District Plan, the Development Management Policies document should specifically recognise the role and importance of the Gilston Area in supporting the Local Plan's strategic objectives, especially those set out in the Prosperity chapter.
b) Policy Specific Comments
Linked to the strategic matter raised above, Places for People also have some comments on specific aspects of the draft policies related, which are set out below.
Policy PL4: Green Wedges and Green Fingers
The Central and Eastern Stort Crossings will play an important role in facilitating Harlow's growth and it is important that the Development Management document supports their delivery.
Policy PL4 should be re-worded to recognise and support the delivery of the crossings within a specific part of the Stort Valley green wedge. This would be consistent with EHDC's draft Policy GA2 (The River Stort Crossings) which states that "The Council will work with key stakeholders including Hertfordshire County Council, Essex County Council, Harlow Council, Hertfordshire LEP, and others as appropriate, to facilitate the delivery of the following transport improvements to crossings of the River Stort...".
The policy should also recognise that the introduction of improved public transport corridors may require a balance to be drawn between the benefits of changing modes of travel and existing green spaces and landscaping.
Policy PL10: Water Quality, Water Management, Flooding and Sustainable Drainage Systems
Places for People would like to work closely with Harlow Council on the final content of this policy to ensure its criteria do not inadvertently prejudice the delivery of the two proposed crossings across the Stort Valley.
Housing
The development of 10,000 homes at the Gilston Area will support the housing and economic needs of Harlow. By providing a wide range of private and affordable homes to rent or buy, the Gilston Area will help attract and retain skilled workers. Many of these will work in Harlow and provide the more diverse local workforce which has been identified as critical to developing the Harlow economy. The contribution that this will make should be recognised in the opening paragraphs of Chapter 3 which focus solely on the 9,200 homes to be delivered in Harlow.
Homes at the Gilston Area will also help rebalance the local housing mix. This is particularly true for the Harlow wards adjacent to East Herts which, whilst having high levels of social rented provision, offer very few intermediate options and limited professionally managed private rented homes.
Given the above, we suggest that an additional paragraph is added under the Implementation text of policy H8 (affordable housing) stating that:
"Major sites outside the district, including the Gilston Area in East Herts, also have an important role in diversifying the existing housing market and supporting economic aims. These sites could provide a wide range of types and tenures of home, informed by site-specific evidence and ensuring that there is a balanced mix of sustainable and high-quality homes across the West Essex and Hertfordshire HMA".
Infrastructure
Places for People will be sponsoring the applications for the Central and Eastern Crossings, and will if necessary be providing the forward funding to ensure their delivery. However, the Crossings are required to meet existing demand and to accommodate the planned growth of Harlow and the wider area. The Infrastructure Chapter should include a policy that makes it clear that development that benefits from the Crossings and other strategic infrastructure should make appropriate contributions either by way of planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy payments.
A series of other comments on the Infrastructure chapter are set out at Annex 1 to this letter.
c) Summary
Places for People welcome the opportunity to continue to engage with Harlow District Council on the evolution of Harlow's Local Development Plan, particularly as the detail on the proposals for the Gilston Area, and Central and Eastern Stort Crossings, continues to progress.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6333

Received: 07/09/2017

Respondent: Countryside Properties Plc

Agent: Barker Parry Town Planning Ltd.

Representation:

In reviewing the policies proposed there is some concern that the evidence base is now significantly dated and in many instances pre-dates the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), such that the position established lacks any clarity or weight to enable a developer to reasonably establish the policy requirements prior to the submission of a planning application.

Full text:

We write further to the ongoing public consultation, in respect of the proposed Development Management policies, on behalf of Countryside Properties Ltd.
In reviewing the policies proposed there is some concern that the evidence base is now significantly dated and in many instances pre-dates the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), such that the position established lacks any clarity or weight to enable a developer to reasonably establish the policy requirements prior to the submission of a planning application. In particular, we comment on emerging Policies H5, H8 and L1.
Policy H5
Policy H5 relates to accessible and adaptable housing and would replace policies H7 & H8 of the Local Plan 2006.
The extant policy base (Policy H7) allowed for a negotiation to take place regarding the extent of accessible and adoptable housing to be provided on any specific site, enabling a mixed community to be created on any site, allowing for viability issues and ensuring accessibility to community facilities and shops. Policy H8 sought to allocate sites that would provide for such provision.
The emerging policy takes this policy position much further stating that all new dwellings must be accessible and adaptable dwellings, in accordance with Part M4(2) of the Building Regulations.
There is a requirement under Building Regulations for all properties to meet Part M4(1), with Part M4(2) being an optional requirement. The policy requirement for all dwellings to comply with an optional Building Regulation requirement is not therefore justified.
The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2015 acknowledges that the increase in people over 65 equates to three-quarters of the growth identified within the Housing Market Area. It also Page 2 of 4
states that "most of these older people will already live in the area and many will not move from their current homes". On this basis, to require all new homes to comply with Part M4(2) is disproportionate to the likely need within the plan period.
Furthermore, the application of this requirement across all dwellings, within all developments will undermine the principles of high quality design required by the NPPF and the adopted Harlow Design Guide.
Looking at the parking requirements associated with Part M4(2), each standard parking space associated with each Part M4(2) compliant property needs to be widened from the Essex Parking Standard requirement of 2.9m to 3.3m. The parking sizes are already considered to be land hungry, with any further increases in size further eroding the ability to deliver developments that do not appear overly car dominant. To quantify the impact of this element of the policy proposed, for a residential development constructed at an average density of 35dph, the increased parking space size will result in the loss of 1 dwelling per hectare of development.
The additional requirement of full step free access to entrances and shallow gradients being applied creates a flat, lifeless environment with no articulation.
The need to introduce ramps and lift shafts to developments further increases the amount of land required per dwelling and erodes flexibility in design.
The SHMA acknowledges that the application of Part M4(2) should only occur where viability is not compromised. This position is not reflected in the proposed policy wording, which makes no allowance for viability to be discussed.
By way of example, Part M4(2) requires a step-free access to be created for each dwelling, irrespective of the storey upon which it is located. If this is applied to a flatted development, each and every flat block would require an lift to be installed, regardless of height. Similarly in instances where the sub-division of an existing dwelling is proposed, forming 1no ground floor flat and 1no first floor flat, a lift would be required.
The increase in cost associated with the installation of a lift will no doubt dissuade people from subdividing their properties, and will challenge the viability of many mid-scale developments within the District. Or lead to a reduction in the mix of housing being offered on each site to maximise viability.
The requirements of Part M4(2), when applied across an entire development site, result in a significant loss of development land, such that meeting these standards will result in either a reduction in the number of dwellings being delivered per hectare, an increase in height of development or, worse case scenario, a reduction in the number of developers wishing to develop in the District due to the policy requirements being overly onerous. Of course the latter will raise significant issues in obtaining a consistent 5 year land supply and potentially even being able to demonstrate that future sites are deliverable.
Given the level of growth required in Harlow, along with the boundary constraints associated with the New Town, this extent of loss on all development sites will significantly reduce the ability to meet the OAHN and in turn place additional pressure on less suitable sites.
Emerging Policy H5 goes on to state that the even more onerous requirement of Part M4(3) should be achieved across 10% of market housing and 15% of affordable housing. Again this is based on information within the SHMA 2015, in which it states: "the evidence therefore supports the need for 10% of market housing and 15% of affordable housing to meet Category 3 requirements".
The SHMA seemingly fails to provide the stated evidence to support this position. Page 3 of 4
There is no localised information available in respect of disability data, however, the national figures for England show that around 1 in 30 households (3.3%) have at least one wheelchair user, with this being significantly higher for affordable housing at 7.1%. The SHMA fails to provide any indication as to how this trend has changed over recent years, that would in turn enable an assessment, as to likely increase, to be made over the plan period. The SHMA merely concludes that the existing 3.3% should increase by a huge 6.7% and the affordable housing requirement by 7.9%.
When based on an average development size of 100 residential units with 30% affordable housing, this would equate to a 330% increase in provision over the existing 1 in 30 dwelling identified within England to date.
Whilst the provision of clear guidance in a policy is welcomed, it does need to be reasonable, substantiated and not result in development being unviable.
It is noted that Harlow District Council has yet to undertake (or publish) a viability assessment in respect of the overall emerging Plan, presumably as a result of the Plan still being formulated. It is therefore considered that this policy is premature and its impact cannot be fully understood without a complete picture of viability being ascertained in the first instance.
It is noted that the equivalent policy within the, now submitted, East Hertfordshire District Plan (Policy HOU7) contains a viability clause as recommended by the SHMA, it states: "II. Only where circumstances exist where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that it is not practically achievable or financially viable to deliver this policy, will new development be exempt from the requirement." If this emerging policy is to be retained, a viability clause should be included.
Lastly, Government Policy specifically warns against reference to non-planning legislation, as other legislation/standards are subject to regular change and results in planning policy becoming out of date quickly. This was seen with the changes to the Code for Sustainable Homes and Authorities with specific policies found themselves with unenforceable policies, conditions and legal agreements.
Certainly in respect of Part M, changes were introduced in 2015 which incorporated the accessibility requirements M4 (1) (2) & (3). These changes superseded the Code for Sustainable Homes and the Design and Quality Standards, amongst other technical standards. The Code for Sustainable Homes was adopted in 2006, lasting only 9 years before it was replaced with the revised Part M requirements. The revised document incorporates some elements of the standards it replaced but is not readily transferable and as such many Local Plan Policies were rendered out of date and unenforceable.
It is considered highly likely that this policy will result in a significant amount of viability questions in respect of future development and without some form of amendment to enable a discussion on this point to be had, may lead to a shortfall in housing development, or an increase in appeals.
Furthermore, the regular change in building regulations is likely to result in the policy being defunct within the early stages of the plan period.
This policy is considered to be flawed, it is therefore recommended that it be deleted to ensure housing development can be readily delivered.
Policy H8
Policy H8 sets out the Council's affordable housing requirement of 30%, which is not objectionable and is supported by the SHMA. Page 4 of 4
The need for 30% affordable housing to be provided on all major residential sites is however contrary to National Planning Policy Guidance. For the purposes of affordable housing provision, there is a distinct difference drawn between the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015 definition of major development and Government guidance on the 10-unit threshold, which requires affordable housing only to be provided on schemes of 11 units or more. The policy should be amended to reflect the NPPG.
Policy L1
Policy L1 is supported by the Harlow Design Guide, which assists in layout and design of facilities to be provided, alongside the Open Space, Sport and Recreation SPD 2007 and the Playing Pitch Strategy 2009, the latter of which forms part of the Local Plan evidence base.
Both the SPD and Playing Pitch Strategy are significantly out of date, they pre-date the NPPF and do not reflect recent developments within the District including, new sports pitches, the re-location of Harlow Rugby Club, planning approvals for new pitches and associated pavilions/changing facilities, or potentially a shift in the sports clubs currently operating.
Without an up to date evidence base supporting this proposed policy, there is little scope for ensuring that appropriate or adequate provision can be made, or more importantly if there is a demonstrable need for further provision. For example, it is understood that there is current vacancies within the allotments within Harlow, should additional provision be made, if there is a lack of need within the District generally.
Similarly, given the need to upgrade existing provision within the District, would it be more preferable for contributions to be made to allow for these facilities to be upgraded and therefore of greater benefit to the wider community, than providing additional facilities that may not be required.
It is considered that this policy is premature and lacks a robust evidence base to ensure developments deliver facilities that meet a demonstrable need. The content of the policy should be revisited to enable a more appropriate and flexible approach to be taken to provision of open space and sports facilities etc, to enable improved facilities to be provided, as well as meeting a demonstrable need.
Taking such an approach could maximise the amount of development that could be accommodated on any one site, where off site contributions are considered more preferable, over on site provision.
We welcome progress on the new Harlow Local Plan and trust that you find the above comments helpful.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6338

Received: 07/09/2017

Respondent: Home Group

Representation:

Home Group wishes to express support of the Draft Development Management Policies document Harlow has issued as part of the Local Plan. We believe the policies show a generally positive and practical attitude, and as a developer partner active in the district, we welcome any approach that encourages sustainable housing developments and promotes good design principles. We also advocate the focus on preserving heritage and the natural environment whilst being pragmatic about the potential for open space development where appropriate.

Full text:

Home Group wishes to express support of the Draft Development Management Policies document Harlow has issued as part of the Local Plan. We believe the policies show a generally positive and practical attitude, and as a developer partner active in the district, we welcome any approach that encourages sustainable housing developments and promotes good design principles. We also advocate the focus on preserving heritage and the natural environment whilst being pragmatic about the potential for open space development where appropriate.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6344

Received: 07/09/2017

Respondent: Essex County Council

Representation:

It is assumed that a statement will be inserted into the introduction of the final Plan clarifying that all development plan policies, including those found in the Essex Minerals Local Plan and Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan, will apply in the administrative area of Harlow, and that the Plans and their policies apply as a whole.

Potential Policy Omission
Reference is made to the NPPF as requiring developments to have a social role and support developing strong, vibrant and healthy communities. There is, however, no health and wellbeing policy within this document. This could possibly be included as part of Policy PL1, or it may be that such a policy would form part of the over-arching strategic Local Plan policies, that are yet to be published. If that is the case, ECC advises and reminds HDC not to overlook that consideration as key throughout the plan and its objectives. In the latter respect, it is noted that there is currently no Local Plan objective that specifically covers health and wellbeing.

In addition, ECC actively encourages the adoption of Health Impact Assessments in line with the existing Essex Planning Officers Association 2008 guidance, which will be updated. ECC also signposts to Public Health Guidance from colleagues at Herts County Council Public Health team, which can be found here- https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/media-library/documents/public-health/hertfordshire's-health-and-wellbeing-planning-guidance-may-2017.pdf. The Harlow DM policies could usefully include a policy requirement for HIAs to be prepared for development proposals.

Full text:

See attachment.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6345

Received: 07/09/2017

Respondent: Essex County Council

Representation:

Paragraph 1.2
The reference to 'national policies' could be made clearer by referring instead specifically to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Paragraph 1.3
This reference to 'strategic policies of the Local Plan could be made clearer by referring instead to the new Local Plan, in order to avoid any confusion with the old, previous Local Plan. NB This also applies to paragraph 2.5.

Paragraph 1.4
There is a lack of substantial references to Passenger Transport within the Policy Objectives and DM Policies. There are only two objectives which offer any suggestion of support for sustainable modes generally or Public Transport specifically. Neither of these however go into sufficient even high level detail to demonstrate that the HDC Plan is intent on encouraging and incentivising bus travel in particular. Objective 13 refers to "reducing the need to travel by vehicle, by locating new developments sustainably", whilst Objective 14 speaks of "improving transport links for all modes, to transport community facilities".

Full text:

See attachment.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6384

Received: 08/09/2017

Respondent: Lichfields

Representation:

We write on behalf of our client, Mulberry Developments (Harlow) Ltd ("Mulberry Developments"), in
relation to the above consultation.
Mulberry Developments is grateful for the opportunity to comment and we provide our comments on the
draft Development Management Policies document within this letter of representation.
Mulberry Developments is the owner of the former GSK South Site, Third Avenue, Harlow. Mulberry
Developments bought the site, located within the Pinnacles Industrial Estate, following its purchase from
GSK in December 2016.
The site is currently subject to an outline planning application (ref. HW/OUTAM/17/00246) seeking to erect
up to 46,916 sq.m (GIA) of Class B8 floorspace.
More generally, Mulberry Developments is a multidisciplinary development company based in
Northamptonshire that specialises in both commercial and residential sectors. Since 2005, they have
delivered over 2 million sq ft. of commercial development across the country.

Full text:

Note: This is a transcript of a scanned document sent by email. Please see attachment for original letter.

Harlow Local Development Plan - Development Management Policies
Consultation

We write on behalf of our client, Mulberry Developments (Harlow) Ltd ("Mulberry Developments"), in
relation to the above consultation.

Mulberry Developments is grateful for the opportunity to comment and we provide our comments on the
draft Development Management Policies document within this letter of representation.
Mulberry Developments is the owner of the former GSK South Site, Third Avenue, Harlow. Mulberry
Developments bought the site, located within the Pinnacles Industrial Estate, following its purchase from
GSK in December 2016.
The site is currently subject to an outline planning application (ref. HW/OUTAM/17/00246) seeking to erect
up to 46,916 sq.m (GIA) of Class B8 floorspace.
More generally, Mulberry Developments is a multidisciplinary development company based in
Northamptonshire that specialises in both commercial and residential sectors. Since 2005, they have
delivered over 2 million sq ft. of commercial development across the country.

We set out below comments on:
1 Policy PR1: Development within Employment Areas;
2 PR4: Improving Job Access and Training; and
3 PL11: Heritage Assets and their Settings.

Policy PR1: Development within Employment Areas
We are generally supportive of this draft policy but have a number of concerns as outlined below.

Policy PR1 states that development in employment areas for uses other than B1, B2 and B8 will be supported
if it meets a number of criteria, including B(ii). This states that:
"The development will increase the number of jobs for local r*esidents" (Our emphasis)
We are concerned with B(ii) as drafted as there is not clear what is meant by 'local residents'. Does this mean
that only jobs created for the residents of Harlow District will be relevant?
The reality is that Harlow sits within a wider labour catchment area and attracts employees from within this
area which will extend beyond the district boundary. Does this mean that any jobs filled by staff not resident
in the District will not be taken into account? How will this be assessed? How will an employer know at the
outset where his staff will live? Our client's site sits adjacent to the boundary with East Herts DC- some
employees might be expected to travel from this District into Harlow to our client's proposed development.
Should these jobs be ignored when assessing this policy?
We would suggest that this criteria be reworded to read
"The development will increase the number of jobs"
In addition, the adopted Harlow Design Guide SPD (Oct, 2011) states at paragraph 4.6.2 the following:
"The Local Plan also encourages the regeneration, modernisation and intensification of existing
employment sites ... "
This support for the intensification of existing employment sites should be reiterated in Policy PR1 for the
avoidance of doubt.
We suggest that an additional criteria (c) be added as follows:
"where it involves the regeneration, modernisation and intensification of existing employment sites subject
to a consideration of other policies in the Local Plan"

Policy PR4: Improving Job Access and Training
Paragraph 4.23 relating to the implementation of Policy PR4 states that:
"The policy will be applied to major development and secured through a planning obligation, tailored to
individual schemes. Applicants should prepm*e an action plan setting out a schedule of new iob
oppm*tlmities to be created through the proposed development..." (Our emphasis)
We submit that the wording be changed as follows:
"The policy will be applied to major development and secured through a planning obligation, tailored to
individual schemes. Where possible, applicants should prepare an action plan setting out a schedule of new
job opportunities to be created through the proposed development..." (addition in bold)
Our concern is that particularly in relation to outline applications the applicant will not know what the exact
job opportunities will be as this will be subject to the occupier.

Policy PL11: Heritage Assets and their Settings
Our Heritage Team has identified a number of concerns with this policy as currently drafted as follows:
1 There is nothing in the policy text regarding weighing any harm against the public benefits. This makes
it inconsistent with the NPPF (paras 133 to 134). Additional text should be accordingly added;
2 Paragraph. 2.74- This second sentence as drafted is too expansive and vague. This policy is intended to
also protect a building/structure within the wider setting of a heritage asset that contributes towards its
significance. However, this could encompass a significant number of buildings where only designated
and non-designated heritage assets are relevant. The paragraph should be amended to clarify this;
3 Paragraph. 2.78- Designated heritage assets do not always include their curtilage; for Listed Buildings
only curtilage structures ifpre-1948 and potentially if building was listed after 1969. Also, settings aren't
designated. Again we would suggest that this paragraph is amended to make this clear.

Conclusion
Mulberry Developments welcomes the opportunity to comment on Harlow's Development Management
Policies document. Our comments above are intended to ensure that the policies relating to employment and
heritage are more effective.
We would be grateful if you could update us on any progress on the Development Management Policies
document.

Comment

Development Management Policies Consultation Draft

Representation ID: 6389

Received: 07/09/2017

Respondent: Roydon Parish Council

Representation:

The Gibberd principles should continue to apply.

Full text:

Roydon Parish Council would like to comment as follows:-

PL4-PL7 The retention of hedgerows and trees should be a priority to maintain the town's 'green' credentials and new developments should provide green wedges and amenity space - these should not be allowed to be developed at a later date as they also provide wildlife habitats.

PL11/PL12 As a relatively new town, heritage assets should be protected from development in order to preserve the town's character.

IN2 Impact of development on the Highways Network - It is important that development does not impact negatively on communities bordering Harlow such as Roydon. Congestion here is already severe and more traffic generated from new development should not make the current situation even more difficult.

IN3 Parking - Whilst Harlow Council may wish to promote alternative transport methods, the reliance on the car must not be underestimated and parking provided accordingly. New Hall already has parking problems, which require a resolution from a private parking company, so this needs to be addressed.

The Gibberd principles should continue to apply.

with regards,
Janet Ballard
Clerk to Roydon Parish Council