Sustainability Appraisal and other supporting documents

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6833

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

There maybe a slight growth to the local Hatches from building extra dwellings, but the Hatches are not used for 'the weekly shop', but as a back-up to those items that have been forgotten on the weekly shop.
Online food shopping is a growth industry and therefore reliance on buses and private vehicles has already reduced.
Owners of private vehicles will always prefer to do their shopping at supermarkets in their cars as their 'travel choice', than the alternative of public transport, consequently it is certain that there will not be a 'modal shift'.

Options B or C, in Table 5.3 for the HS2-5 site remains at 36 dwellings, however, paragraphs 1-3 are pertinent to the effects of what could be built on the land, the infrastructure, transport, existing built-up areas within close proximity of homes, the landscape of Harlow and countryside and the impact of design to the layout of existing streets, is contrary to the original Master Plan of Sir Frederick Gibberd.
In my opinion this is going to be detrimental to the quality of life for all the existing residents of Harlow. This could lead to working people leaving Harlow to find more pleasant areas of the country to live in. This in turn would increase the proportion of very young and old people, thus increasing the demand on Harlow council for social spending, whilst the tax paying base has decreased.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6834

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

'Air pollution in Harlow is considered generally low ...... and the air quality is improving in the District' I do not see how creating more homes and consequently more vehicles can keep the pollution and air quality in Harlow low. Creating 'sustainable transport corridors' in the belief that owners of vehicles will shift to public transport, is from my personal observation, something that will just not happen. (Consider this, if you needed to bring home the weekly shopping and you had a choice of using your car or a bus, which would you choose?) Furthermore, the consequential increase in commercial vehicles that will come into Harlow to sustain its increased population will have a detrimental effect to the infrastructure, in particular the roads in air quality.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6835

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

By focusing housing and employment in the east, even with good public transport and infrastructure, does not equate to reducing dependency on the car. The Gibberd Master Plan was not to have housing too near to the industrial estates and cycling and public transport was the preferred mode of transport at that time.
Commuters cannot rely on bus companies to provide sustainable and reliable public transport to their places of employment. Furthermore, buses do not always provide a service that goes to the required destination nor run at the times required. The cost of fares can also be off-putting to workers. The overall consequences of this, will be to increase pressure on key transport corridors, exacerbating congestion problems where they exist and possibly creating new areas of congestion where they don't currently exist.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6836

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

In my opinion, the design of every new-dwelling that Harlow Council commissions, should have suitable facilities* for the occupiers to install charging points when they make the transition from petrol/diesel to electric vehicles . .
* e.g. garages or hard standings close to the dwellings and close to high power electric cables that can carry power to the occupier's charging point.
There is a 'chicken and egg' situation where people are reluctant to change to electric vehicles if they consider there is inadequate facilities for charging, whilst councils and businesses seem to be reluctant to invest in charging points whilst there are so few electric vehicles on the road.
In my opinion, Harlow Council should become a leader in the provision of charging points for electric vehicles by providing them in all new builds and public car parks. In addition it should create an incentive for local businesses with parking facilities to provide charging points for its employees and customers.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6837

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

From the above Policy IN3 I assume that any new builds will have parking provided near the residents home for 'accessibility and promoting their travel choice'. It does not automatically follow that Policy IN3 will reduce reliance to travel in any particular vehicle 'while ensuring that on-street parking issues are not created'.
There are already on-street parking issues for existing residents, as the vehicle requirements outweigh the available space, and consequently 'hardstands' on residents homes are becoming the norm, which could have future long-term drainage issues (this is not just a problem in Harlow, but countrywide ).

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6838

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

In my opinion it is not appropriate to conclude these plans will have a neutral effect for all the reasons I have previously stated. I am alarmed to read that the mitigation measures will be an 'iterative process'. To me, this sounds like 'let the people of Harlow suck it and see', which is not the way I would expect a Report of this kind to conclude.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6839

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

I agree with the first sentence of9.40, that the loss of greenfield land has the potential for a cumulative negative effect on biodiversity through habitat loss and fragmentation. For this reason I object to building dwellings on the playing field labelled HS2-5 site. This playing field is surrounded by trees and hedgerows in a built-up area.
Please remember the Gibberd Master Plan included 'green wedges and green fingers as an infrastructure to provide ecological corridors for wildlife', which need to be protected, 'which are key physical features of Harlow that have shaped its subsequent growth'.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6840

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

I note that the report acknowledges that site specific policies will be required and despite this, its concluded that uncertain minor negative effects will be inflicted on the residents of Harlow. For the reasons and objections I have stated, I do not believe the negative effects will be minor- they are more likely to be major negative effects.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6841

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

In my opinion building more dwellings throughout Harlow will increase the number of vehicles in Harlow and this will inevitably lead to greater emissions of pollutants.
If you've seen some of the thick black smoke emitted by some of the buses in Harlow, you would probably agree with me that quoting the 7 use of public transport is not necessarily going to reduce obnoxious emissions.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6842

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

HS2-5 is a playing field, with trees, bushes and hedgerows and a source of drainage for lower-lying homes. It is constantly used by Radburn Close residents for a variety of purposes that includes viewing as a source of relaxation and enjoyment, a cycle track, playing football, golf etc.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6843

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

I agree with the sentiments expressed in the above paragraph provided all new dwellings are on brown-field sites and green sites are left undeveloped as was envisaged in the Sir Frederick Gibberd's original plans. If Harlow is made into a concrete jungle, all the laudable sentiments expressed in the above paragraph will be in serious jeopardy.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6844

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Sandra Beavis

Representation:

( 1 ). Disagree that the long-term negative effects will only be minor.
(2). The report author acknowledges uncertainty on the subject of negative effects, thereby strengthening our arguments that the effects will be major, not minor.
(3). We cannot understand the logic of saying that a 'no plan' scenario will necessarily result in greenfield loss. Naturally there should be a plan, but this should not take away greenfield sites within Harlow. If housing pressure demands the use of greenfield sites, these should be on the outskirts of Harlow, not within Harlow.

Full text:

see attachment

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6854

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Redrow Homes

Agent: Redrow Homes

Representation:

HARLOW GREEN BELT REVIEW (2016)
The Council subsequently subdivided those eight areas which scored averagely or poorly in the Stage 1 Assessment to allow them to be further assessed against purposes 3 (safeguarding the countryside from encroachment) and purpose 4 (preserving the setting and special character of
historic towns). The Site at Moor Hall Road was located within sub-area 8.1 which was assessed as having a minor contribution to purpose 3 and no contribution to purpose 4. The Council therefore determined that this sub-area is not functioning Green Belt as assessed against Paragraph 80 of the NPPF.

At present, the Green Belt boundary at Parcel 8.1 is defined by the rear gardens of properties on Windmill Fields and surrounding residential roads. The varied garden depths and boundary features forms a weak boundary with the Green Belt. The location of area 8.1 adjacent to the existing built
up area of Churchway Green to the west and positioned between the urban area and the M11 motorway to the east, provides an opportunity to strengthen the Green Belt boundary to the east of
Harlow using a significant existing permanent physical feature of the M11 motorway. This would reinforce the Green Belt boundary in perpetuity in accordance with NPPF paragraph 85.

Full text:

see attachment