Letter to the Editor

Sir,

I UNDERSTAND that on social media at least one Conservative councillor is calling the Harlow Alliance Party “liars” when it comes to the response we have given to the government-appointed inspector and the role that our Party played compared with what the Conservative Party did, so I have set out below the facts of the matter so that readers can make up their own minds about what has actually happened.

It is true that the Conservative Party objected to the Plan when it was debated in the Council chamber, but as the minority Party this had no effect on changing the proposal to include 21 sites for future housing development. The Harlow Alliance Party was only set up in January 2018 and was therefore in no position to be involved at all until after then.

During 2018 residents had the opportunity to comment on a draft of the Local Plan. Because of the way that the Council tried to avoid consulting with residents, very few did so. The Conservative Party could and should have made this public by way of holding public meetings for instance but didn’t do so. They could subsequently have made a formal representatiion to the government appointed inspector but didn’t do so.

But what did HAP do? Well we did make a formal representation to the inspector so we were able to participate in the five days of his examination. We did chose the 8 sites from the 21 which we specifically objected to, we did set up five public meetings to see what support we would get for opposing the inclusion of these sites and we did to write to all residents living nearby.

We were able to make our case to the inspector, unlike the Tory Party, I should make it quite clear that whatever they said in the council chamber about the plan none of it would have been known by the inspector, who was only concerned about the representations formally made to him in writing and on the days of the examination hearings.

So what about the outcome? Well of the eight sites that HAP did oppose, six have been deleted by the inspector of the Local Plan as well as another green field site at the Maples. These are what are known as Main Modifications, which the council have to accept, there can not really be any useful debate about these, so any involvement by the Conservatives is just paying lip service to the outcome.

HAP have not in the meantime been standing still in case the outcome was not as good as it has turned out to be. We are, with the help of residents living near these sites making applications to the Council known as Community Right to Bids, which means that if the Council ever decided to sell them for private development, they would first have to give the Community the chance to buy ithe land. Such applications have been made on five of these sites to date, four have been accepted by the council, namely at Fennells, Deer Park, Jocelyns and Hawthorns, the outcome of the fifth is awaited and applications for the other three sites will be made in the New Year.

Nicholas Taylor