Harlow Alliance Party hand in petition over plans for housing in town
News / Fri 6th Jul 2018 am31 11:01am
ON WEDNESDAY, the The Harlow Alliance Party (HAP) delivered it’s response to Harlow Council’s Local Plan Pre- Submission Consultation Document, together with two petitions, signed by 383 residents objecting to the inclusion of eight greenfield sites which are amongst a list of 21 sites which have been identified for future house building.
HAP believes the Plan does not meet three of the five tests which it will need to pass if it is to be agreed by the government’s inspector. It fails these tests by not providing enough, strong evidence of future housing need, it does not provide enough new infrastructure to meet the increase in population these plans will bring and it does not protect green wedges and wildlife.
In addition, it is clear that the consultation with residents about this plan has been woeful. It does not take account of windfall sites such as offices being converted to flats, decisions are already being made about sites before the Plan is agreed (Lister House and St Andrews Meadow), there are issues about affordability and tenure type and there is a lack of an overall infrastructure plan, which is in fact in Epping Forest District Council’s Plan.
In conclusion HAP believe this whole matter has been dealt with very badly by Harlow Council when compared with what, when and how other councils have put their plans together.
We believe that none of the eight sites identified need to be built on and at the very least they should be removed from the list.
MickyB77
2018-07-06 11:12:56
Good job that somebody is keeping an eagle eye on Comrade Durcan and his cohorts.Well done HAP.
jarrett
2018-07-06 12:50:02
At last a party that will speak out.
durcant
2018-07-07 08:23:45
Comrade Durcan.just for the record the local plan was never under my remit but the plan is essential in securing the future of the town. Politics should never include the fear factor but sadly the HAP appear to have adopted this principle on this issue. I have been called a lot of names in the past some not that friendly but comrade Durcan did make me smile.
tenpin
2018-07-07 11:42:20
Well as Leader of the Harlow Alliance Party I can only say that durcant's post is just breathtaking in it's dismissal of the views of hundreds of residents we have spoken to in the last month. Perhaps you would like to debate the following; 1 The almost total lack of resident involvement in creating this plan compared with what other authorities have done.The Council should have used the Harlow Times, public meetings and home visits if it truly wanted to consult residents. 2 The choices made to destroy green wedges and play areas, when other sites are clearly available. 3 The disregarding of windfall sites which will materially add to the number of people seeking school places, doctors surgeries and other public services, on top of those in the Local Plan. As for 'securing the future of the town', this is just madness and smacks of what property developers would be saying to try and convince people that their land should be built on. Thousands of houses on green belt land is not what is needed or wanted. As for the fear factor and politics, both parties are awash with that tactic Brexit, NHS future etc etc.We are simply expressing the disgust towards Harlow Council, that so many people we have spoken to have said to us on the door step.
durcant
2018-07-07 13:12:00
Thank you for the response,my comment when you read it makes no mention of residents but about your style of communication. It’s an important and challenging issue and we need to ensure this is right for the whole of Harlow. it better to communicate with facts not fear.
tenpin
2018-07-07 17:18:41
Still dodging the facts durcant. Not willing to comment on the three points I made then? I did not think Labour councillors had the letter C in their dictionary, they have not COMMUNICATED with the residents of Harlow or CONSULTED with then either. Until our election leaflets started to go through doors neither local parties wanted to engage with voters on this subject. We have enclosed a leaflet produced for Harlow Council staff in the late 1990's entitled Consultation, a guide to good practice, with our submission to your Local Plan, I suggest you dig it out and find out what a good labour council from that era would have done.
tenpin
2018-07-09 12:37:50
Looks like Harlow Alliance Party 3 Harlow Labour Party 0.
MickyB77
2018-07-10 06:11:04
Bravo HAP.
Brett Hawksbee
2018-07-12 14:55:41
Perhaps you might like to actually read the draft document? You "It does not take account of windfall sites ..." Document. 7.29 Whilst there has been a steady supply of windfall sites, their contribution to the housing supply has not been significant. The New Town legacy of Harlow means the district has been carefully planned from the outset; consequently there are very few opportunities for windfall sites. It is considered that the windfall supply in Harlow would not meet the national criteria and consequently has not been included as a reliable source of supply in the five year supply calculations. 7.30 Change of use from office to residential by Prior Notification has produced additional housing in the district, although this source of new dwellings should not be considered as windfall as the status may change during the Local Plan period. Evidence shows that the district should retain employment sites which will be required as Harlow’s growth aspirations are realised. And Tenpin you are on record as suggesting such developments should not take place, and are also aware of the article 4 direction by which the council aim to stop such developments. You also said: 'there is a lack of an overall infrastructure plan, which is in fact in Epping Forest District Council’s Plan'. Whilst you translate this into English, I'd point out that EFDC successfully REMOVED the statutory rights of residents close to Latton Priory development to even object... And your 'three points' ... 1) What you are observing is the officers and members going about doing the jobs they are expected to. It isn't an 85,000 member brainstorm, it is the development of a cohesive and integrated plan in the interests of the best possible future for the town, by those tasked with getting on and doing it. 2) The choices made to destroy green wedges and play areas, when other sites are clearly available, you say ... Which is an unfounded claim. How the plans integrate with the space and landscape is not clear. 3) The disregarding of windfall sites which will materially add to the number of people seeking school places, doctors surgeries and other public services, on top of those in the Local Plan. Tenpin you are on record as suggesting such developments should not take place, and are also aware of the article 4 direction by which the council aim to stop such developments. But on the plus side, you've had your moan on Your Harlow, so 3/4 more people now know HAP exists, eh!
MickyB77
2018-07-12 15:03:17
Go look at the sites already built upon BH,and tell me they were derelict land. Then go and look at what's been planned for further destruction of good farming land.I live amongst this destruction, not in some removed detached five bed-room job,like, some others. Dump it on the hoi polloi and let them get on with it,comrade.
tenpin
2018-07-12 23:34:47
Well at last Brett, someone trying to give an explanation about some aspects of Labours Local Plan (as described in it's election literature), I would make the following points in reply. Windfall sites have in the last three years led to nearly 1000 new homes being created in Harlow, not an insignificant number, all occupied by families needing school places, the use of doctors surgeries and other public services. Other sites are in the pipeline, hundreds of new homes planned for the site next to the old Pearson building, 155 homes when the Terminus Street car park is demolished, the redevelopment of Wych Elm and even the extra homes than originally planned for the former car showroom near the station. Non will involve Article 4. This Article will give the council control over office conversions but that does not mean that an application will be refused so such sites will still come on stream, I expect that the proposed offices at the former car showroom site will in due course be converted to flats. Cllr Purton recently said when asked that over 2000 letters and emails had been sent to residents, businesses and other interested parties so some form of public consultation took place, we think far more should have been done. The Plan clearly means the destruction of many acres of green spaces which have been enjoyed by residents for decades. Clearly you and the Labour Party think that councillors and officers know what's best when it comes to the future of the town, the hundreds of people we have spoken to in the last month don't think so. Take a look at what other Councils have done and look at the Plans of other authorities and then the penny might drop that Harlow's attempt is poor. As for publicity, our website has had more than 20000 hits since January and take a look at this weeks doorstep newspaper. What you and your Party have been doing (or not doing) about this Plan for the last few years is giving us the best publicity for a new local party than we could ever have hoped for.
Brett Hawksbee
2018-07-13 16:20:22
The local plan though, is of course about future needs and development, not what has already happened. You might disagree with what has already been done, but criticism of a draft local plan becomes somewhat confused, when completed developments are cited as faults or failings, when they are by definition NOT faults or failings of the Local Plan, per se, which is about future needs. You rightly suggest that some development will take place even if approved by the normal planning route. But clearly this will happen, in all probability, against the wishes of the council. It would take a PR genius to include in a local plan possible development which the council is actively opposed to without attracting comprehensive and abject ridicule. That alone is reason enough for such possible additional developments not being included in the Local Plan. At the moment, the plan is that they don't happen; if ill-considered Tory legislation determines that they do, the council are certainly not wrong to PLAN on the basis that they prevail in such matters. I do not doubt that Danny is correct in his assertion that 'over 2000 letters and emails' were sent out as a form of public consultation. I do not doubt either, that more debate will be undertaken, including public representations. What we do have, as the Draft Local Plan is firmed up, is a great set of Labour councillors, and a Leader of the Council who is 100% engaged and committed to the future success of the town and the interests of its residents. As for the 'destruction of green spaces', I'm not aware of any that would be 'destroyed'. Reduced in size perhaps ... but Harlow is a TINY Local Authority, without the huge footprint of its neighbours, and does not have the same options. You are of course aware, and the plan points out, that the major peripheral developments are entirely or primarily on neighbouring authorities land. I am of course speaking for myself, not the council, or my party, but you know time does not stand still. Sadly many Harlow born and bred residents, who once played on those green spaces cannot find anywhere they can afford to live ... some crammed in Mum and Dad's house with their own children who simply do not utilise the green spaces, preferring to live on their smartphones. We have wonderful green space facilities in Harlow, natural areas such as alongside the River Stort, the beautiful Town Park, access to places like Harlow Museum, Gibberd Gardens, we live amongst world class sculpture as we move around our fabulous town. If, in such a restricted space, a small part of the undeveloped areas are used to provide badly needed housing (and infrastructure) it is actually a small price to pay, and given changing lifestyles a reasonable exchange of facility. When the town was built it was imagined that somewhere between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 households would ever own a car... which anticipated lifestyle largely informed the green wedges. From virtually anywhere in the town, I can cycle, safe from traffic, to any number of green spaces ... Netteswell Pond, Latton Common, or any of the areas already mentioned, or drive if I'm feeling terminally lazy, and be in open countryside in minutes. This plan is about the future of Harlow, and what it will offer its residents. It is daring to imagine a vibrant, thriving Harlow. There is yet room for discussion, but this plan is about making a success of our town. It is a shame you are not on board with that objective.
tenpin
2018-07-13 17:43:01
Brett, I think we will simply have to agree to disagree. I know from speaking to hundreds of residents in the last 6 weeks that they do not share your views, I suggest you get out a bit more, try visiting residents who live around the Bushey Croft, Jocelyns or Pollard Hatch sites for example, where ALL the green area will be lost or Deer Park where a huge green area will be lost. Your fifth paragraph smacks of smugness, I think we will use it on our next election literature.
MickyB77
2018-07-14 07:27:32
BH and YKW use this site to promote the Socialists projects. Another Socialist, A H also promoted his views.
tenpin
2018-07-14 11:06:03
Just one final note Brett, I quote what a Housing Minister said only last year " Breaking down resistance (to house building) would rely on design, quality and infrastructure so it is going in upfront and also thinking about who those homes are going to go to because if people feel like their kids will get the homes, they're are more likely to support new housing". Seems you and Harlow Labour are taking the same stance. Try telling that to the thousands of families on Harlow and Epping Council's waiting list, you can have an affordable home but that will be £350k thank you.In the meantime the boss of Persimmons (building homes off Gilden Way) got a salary with bonuses of in excess of £100 Million this year.
Brett Hawksbee
2018-07-16 07:52:43
You are concerned, and I am concerned, about affordability. My view is not the view of Harlow Labour Party, or Harlow Council, it is my own opinion; however unless and until there is an agreed formula for 'affordable' which actually makes sense, and isn't a 'Ministry of Truth' corruption of the word affordable. For buying I would argue that no more than10X average local salary (and probably less) is an absolute maximum for the word affordable to be meaningful. Similarly social rents should be related to incomes, not the local private rental market. (This also has the benefit of creating rental costs from which to pin private rentals via rent control legislation) What we do need to build though, as a council, in the future, is actual council houses, and for all building, as you suggest, to be contingent on the necessary increases in the capacities of schools and surgeries etc. We will need changes to right to buy legislation which only a Labour government would be prepared to make, but thereafter TRULY affordable homes to rent, with a long term slow acquisition of an increasing equity share ... a council 'rent to buy' if you like, is the best possible way of ordinary people ever affording to own their own homes.
Brett Hawksbee
2018-07-16 09:22:10
Repeated but without grammatical errors. You are concerned, and I am concerned, about affordability. My view is not the view of Harlow Labour Party, or Harlow Council, it is my own opinion; however discussion about affordability is meaningless, unless and until there is an agreed formula for ‘affordable’, which actually makes sense, and isn’t a ‘Ministry of Truth’ corruption of the word. For buying I would argue that no more than 10X average local salary (and probably less) is an absolute maximum for the word affordable to be meaningful. Similarly social rents should be related to local incomes, not the local private rental market. (This also has the benefit of creating rental costs from which to pin private rentals via rent control legislation) What we do need to build though, as a council, in the future, is actual council houses, and for all building, as you suggest, to be contingent on the necessary increases in the capacities of infrastructure ... schools and surgeries etc. We will need changes to right to buy legislation which only a Labour government would be prepared to make, but thereafter TRULY affordable homes to rent, with a long term progressive acquisition of an equity share … a council administered ‘rent to buy’ if you will, is the best possible way of ordinary people ever affording to own their own homes.
tenpin
2018-07-16 16:25:02
All very laudable Brett but we are looking at what your fellow Labour Party members, in the Council are already doing. They are trying to 'sell' the idea that the thousands of homes proposed in and around Harlow will help young families in Harlow, when in fact only a tiny percentage of the new homes in the area will be council owned (just 450 max out of 16000+) and has been demonstrated by the proposals for the council owned sites at Bushey Croft, St Andrews Meadow and Lister House, these homes will all be in the 'affordable' category rather than social rent category. As things stand, no one can seriously think that building a few dozen council homes each year will make any dent into the housing crisis in this town. HAP want to see as many bungalows built as possible, this can then allow residents to downsize, to homes more suited to their needs and then free up under occupied homes. I know from long experience in Harlow's Housing Department that one bungalow becoming available can end up helping up to five families, so on that basis 450 bungalows could help 2000 families and save money from adapting a persons existing home and in many instances reducing 'bed blocking'.
Brett Hawksbee
2018-07-17 11:07:07
There is an absolute will to address these issues; to get the supply as appropriate as possible. The situation you allude to could already be less of a problem were it not for Central Government legislation. At least some of those ready and willing to downsize, may not, because having been on their own in a three bedroom house, and got into rent arrears, they cannot be considered to exchange their property for a smaller one which they could better afford! Bonkers! We are where we are; we have a very important job of getting the relationship, priorities and responsibilities right with the neighbouring authorities developing on our boundaries. We do also need to be building ourselves, but building, as you say, the right mix of private, social and council properties. To that end, our council has set up a business which can commercially build council properties in Harlow,and return profit, like other HTS Group businesses, to the council. The suggestion that bungalows, (although not ideal from the building footprint to occupation/density position) hold the key is not a new idea, not a bad one. I'm going to go off track again; looking at government legislation against actual needs. And I'd say what we need to build as council homes are not bungalows, but low rise flats. In blocks, with ground floor for downsizing, and floor above for young people. Young people who should be encouraged, maybe even incentivised, to 'buddy up' with an elderly neighbour, checking they are ok etc. These could if well designed, actually be quite small properties ... 25sq m for a single person, 30sq m for a couple ... but they would be illegal as the law stands. (Newbuild 1 bedroom flat must be at least 37 sq m I believe.) These would have the same advantages as your bungalows, (single storey accommodation for older tenants), but also provide some single person, single parent or young couple rental properties too. And also assist in resizing moves.
tenpin
2018-07-17 11:37:54
So how long have you been working in a housing department or something similar? I did 44 years. I note that you keep saying 'we' as though you are a Labour Councillor or someone within the Party with clout? We have met many people on the doorstep who would like to downsize, talking about rent arrears is just trying to dodge the issue. Take a look and Woodwards and the foot print that site takes. No upstairs to build, so cheaper and less parking needed. Your suggestion puts people in shoe boxes and as soon as a person gets a partner and children, they go back into housing need. Sorry but it ain't going to work!
Brett Hawksbee
2018-07-18 14:16:08
My 'we', is usually meaning you, me, and the other people of Harlow, or 'we, Harlow', what Harlow should be doing. Whether it is in the gift of the public or the council. I do not claim any special influence over anyone. (And don't kid yourself about the reach and 'clout' of HAP - You seem happy to we this and we that . In fact lets say an ordinary RESIDENT ... someone you, as Harlow Alliance Party, would I hope seek to reach out to, even listen too. As someone who's vote you might seek. As it is, you seem to be interested only in those residents that make the noises you want to hear ... Rent arrears is not dodging the issue it is the real reason many people cannot change properties. And your bungalow works, but your 'bungalow' with a flat above, doesn't? That is literally nonsensical. People do move through different housing needs, in different stages of their lives. Even privately, single people and couples will often buy a 1 or 2 bedroom flat before trading up to a more suitable property for the family they plan. If you are expecting every level of housing, for the entire local population, as and when they require it, you are even more deluded than I imagined. And if you do not, your objection to my suggestion becomes pretty much invalid.
tenpin
2018-07-18 22:11:50
Brett, your total lack of first hand knowledge shines brightly in your last post and I have decided not to respond to any more of your posts in the future. Stick to a subject you know, if you have any. I think I need to remind you that I worked in housing departments for 44 years, some involving elderly services and homelessness but mostly dealing with rent arrears and tenancy matters. You clearly have no such experience. I am not certainly not deluded. A bungalow with a flat above is called ..... a ground floor flat. Older people do not want such accommodation, someone living above them, with potential noise problems and others. Rent arrears are RARELY a bar to someone moving, indeed the council pay tenants to downsize. The lack of bungalows in this town means that in the private sector they cost more than a house from which residents wish to move from. The simple fact is, we have spoken to hundreds of residents in recent months, it's a pity that most of Harlow's councillors are not seen or heard of from one election period to another. If they did instead of keeping in their own little party bubble, they might find just what people are really thinking about what is going on. Just for example, go and stand in the Market square for an hour and ask people walking past two questions, firstly what do you think of the work that has just been finished and then ask what they think when you tell the the Council has spent over a quarter of a million of their pounds on the work.
Brett Hawksbee
2018-07-19 09:47:18
I know what a ground floor flat is, which is why 'bungalow' is in quotes. As for the remainder of your response, it is truly revealing. Your claim to superior 'specialist' knowledge, based on being a housing department minion, absolutely demonstrates your agenda. Quite the little dictator! You have your own views, but seek a means to claim that they are the 'prevailing position' on all local issues. Pretending to speak for 'hundreds of people you speak to ...' There are plenty of local councillor positions coming up soon. I'm sure you will pick a ward to contest. And equally sure that you will find out by such means, quite how few residents actually give a monkeys about your 44 years in Housing, or your opinion. (I appreciate of course, that as a man of integrity, you will not, as you have already stated, be replying to this comment.)
23 Comments for Harlow Alliance Party hand in petition over plans for housing in town: