Council Devolution

We suspect that most residents in Harlow will be unaware that proposals are well underway to scrap Essex County Council (ECC) and the District Councils in Essex, including Harlow District Council (HDC), to be replaced by a small number of what is known as Unitary Councils which would provide all the services presently provided by the two types of councils.

Such changes have already taken place in other parts of the country in recent years and under the guise of devolution, the new Labour Government are forging ahead in encouraging such changes despite the opposition from many who see this is all about giving more power to a smaller number of councillors.

Without any consultation with residents, ECC has already postponed local elections in May this year and at least three Harlow Councillors have spoken in favour of these changes.

The Harlow Alliance Party (HAP) take a very different view, one which notes that whilst all is not well with how ECC is run, creating a number of large authorities in Essex is not the way to go about improving services.

Priorities With the NHS, social care, SEND and other public services in crisis, you would think that central and local government would want to concentrate time, money and effort on improving services, rather than make changes of which there is no evidence they will make improvements,

Why? There has been no consultation with residents and in the 6 years of its existence members of HAP have never come across anyone expressing the view that such changes are needed. HDC has recently held meetings where the public have been barred from attending, one wonders what was being discussed behind closed doors, indeed the council do not appear to have made any public comment on these proposals.

The proposals. Depending on which Councillor, in their interests, you listen to, ECC will be carved up into between 3 and 5 new Districts. The Government want each new council to serve a population of about 500,000 residents. With a population of 1.9 million, 3 or 5 new councils may therefore be unlikely. Councillors like Joel Charles have suggested that a West Essex Council may be formed to include HDC and East Herts DC but this is simply not on the cards, so the development at Gilston will never become part of the Harlow district. The proposals will see Harlow Council swallowed up in a new authority to include Uttlesford, Epping Forest and Chelmsford with a population as at 2021 of 502,000.

Representation. The 93,000 residents of Harlow are represented by 33 councillors, the 92,000 living in Uttlesford 39 councillors, the 134,000 living in Epping Forest 54 councillors and the 183,000 living in Chelmsford 57 councillors, a total of 183. Bearing in mind what has already happened across the country, this number will no doubt be considerably reduced. As an example of this, Cornwall with a population of 575,000 has just 87 Councillors. These changes have already given more power to less councillors who are even more remote from residents than they are now.

Town and Parish Councils. Many residents living in our neighbouring council areas, such as Waltham Abbey, Loughton and Ongar have Town and Parish Councils. Will we the residents of Harlow be afforded the same? If so, we will end up still having two councils in the area, as we do now.

Savings. Much is made by those supporting the changes who elude to savings that can be made and Council Tax bills being greatly reduced. But the facts do not bear this out. In the short term the changes proposed will come at a huge cost, borne by us Council Tax payers. At the moment HDC Council Tax Band D payers pay about £2 per week more than those living in Southend and Thurrock which are Unitary Authorities. Comparision with others such as Cornwall, Durham, Wilstshire and Dorset however show that residents there are paying between £4 and £8 per week more.

Financial implications. There is no doubt that over the years ECC have made a pigs ear of many issues and are heavily in debt. What will happen to these debts, will they be spilt amongst the new Unitary Councils? And what of the cost to make these changes. As examples you only have to look at one element, that is the integration of computer systems. West Sussex County Councils move to Oracle has taken some 5 years and costs ballooned from £2.6 million to £40 million.

In conclusion, HAP believe the changes proposed will be disastrous for the future of the town. Our locally elected representatives will be outnumbered by those living elsewhere and all council services will be swallowed up in a much larger authority, with all the same problems experienced with Essex County Council.

Sherards House – Shameful behaviour by the Council

Yet again Harlow Council are manipulating the planning process to bulldoze through approval for the removal of more than 22 established trees on this site in order to progress with their own application to build 14 houses. Along with removal of a further 20 hedgerow trees, including Laurels, Blackthorns and Hawthorns, this will represent an increase of 400 % on the figure presented to the Planning Committee in August last year.

The original Arboriculture report and its update were not supported by the planning sections consultant arborist because they contained insufficient information, and the proposals were not in accordance with several of the Local Development Plan Policies.

None the less the Committee, even after concerns were raised by many Councillors about the removal of just 9 trees, approved the application. Now they are using the back door to remove in excess of 40 trees without the need to go to committee or consult with residents. Disgraceful, scandalous, shameful, behaviour.  

Latton Priory Consultation

The Harlow Alliance Party has long campaigned against building on the Green Belt close to the boundary of Harlow, supported by over 900 residents who signed a petition objecting to the proposals to the south and west of the town.

The present consultation follows in the same manner, the proposals will have far reaching effect on existing residents in the town, but EFDC have again chosen to seek the views of residents in only a small part of Harlow and given them just three weeks to respond. Harlow Council on the other hand has made no attempt to advise residents of the planning application.

Anyone currently trying to navigate Harlow’s roads will know that sitting in queues of traffic is now a daily routine no matter which route you take.

On reading the detail of the Latton Priory outline planning application  the more it becomes apparent that once again priority is being given to profit making house construction over the delivery of timely supportive infrastructure.

There is evidence in the outline planning application that the proposed STC route from Harlow Town to Commonside Rd through to Latton Priory will not be completed until 2030 at the earliest.The aspirations of the HGGT Transport Strategy – to achieve a mode split of 60% by non-car driver modes in garden communities, and of 50% across the town as a whole by 2033 is going to face challenges without the delivery of the Latton Priory STC mobility hub. And for residents who move into homes built in the early phases of the site development there will be compromised public travel options.

National Planning Policy Framework

The Government has today (December 19th) published the much-delayed Policy Framework which will give Councils power to reduce the number of homes they must allow to be built if development will significantly alter the character of their area or damage the Green Belt, as well as exempt them from building houses on prime agricultural land. In addition, it removes the requirement for Local Housing Needs Assessments and allowing Councils to build as few homes as they wish. In anticipation of these changes sixty Councils have already paused or withdrawn their Local Plans as they will no longer be held to targets set by the standard method.

So, what does this mean for the future of the Harlow and Gilston Town, which as things stand will see hundreds of acres of Green Belt land destroyed, the removal of many commercial greenhouses to the west of the town and the destruction of many green spaces within the Harlow boundary? Will Councillors at Harlow DC, East Herts DC and Epping Forest DC say enough is enough and follow the lead of councillors at sixty other Council’s and withdraw their plans.

In the meantime developers are crying crocodile tears about this framework, whilst sitting on many brown field sites which have lain derelict for many years.

Harlow Alliance response to the interview between the Director of HGGT and the CEO of Harlow Council

On 25th September YourHarlow published an interview between the Director of Harlow & Gilston Garden Town and the CEO of Harlow Council (you can read it here) to discuss their unique partnership and the exciting project that is the Harlow & Gilston Garden Town. A consultation exercise will commence early next month, lasting for six weeks, which purports to asks residents their view on a range of issues about the proposed development.

The Harlow Alliance Party was the only Party to object to the Local Development Plans of Harlow and Epping Forest District Council when they were scrutinised by the Government appointed Planning Inspectors back in 2019. The Party has always made its case backed by facts and in view of the recent interview we wish to make our case clear to counter some of the points made.

Firstly, the boundary of Harlow should have been changed to include the whole HGGT area so that the public services provided by a District Council are provided by just one Council and decisions made about the future of the town are made in Harlow and not Epping and Hertford as is be the case now.
Because no boundary changes have taken place, Harlow Council will not receive any Council Tax or Business Rates from the occupiers of the new homes and businesses built around the town.

Hundreds of acres of Green Belt land around Harlow (not Epping or Hertford of course) will be lost to development, including land used for commercial greenhouses, just at a time when the country should be reducing its food imports.

The need for affordable housing was clearly demonstrated in the Local Plans of the three District Councils. Despite this, developers have already been allowed to seek Planning Permission with a reduced number of such homes and indeed in some cases without any. Not a single Council owned home will be built in the new developments bordering Harlow despite the huge waiting lists held by the three District Councils.

In the interview reference was made to the ageing housing stock in Harlow. Building thousands of unaffordable homes around the town helps none of the existing residents of Harlow.. Harlow Council has failed to maintain the external fabric of its houses, less than 200 homes per year are being externally repaired and painted, leaving many untouched for literally decades. Perhaps this is all part of a long-term plan by the Council as it has with Sherards House, leave them for years to fall in to disrepair and then say they have to be demolished.

The roads leading in, within and out of Harlow will undoubtably see a huge increase in traffic, more noise, more pollution and more damage to road surfaces. Major road works will be needed in front of St James’ School, at other pinch points across the town and in order to create the new transport corridors. Any suggestion that public transport will take up much of the extra travel seen in the town will fall on the deaf ears of residents who have seen bus routes cut and poor services provided.

Harlow Alliance remains adament that these developments around Harlow will do nothing to improve the lot of us already living here, in fact quite the opposite and Harlow Council has let its residents down. Again.

Sherards House Demolition

Readers may be bemused by the fact that so many residents have objected to the demolition of Sherards House at a time where there is clearly a need for more council homes to be built. Residents have seen this for what it is, over development of a site which with a little more imagination could have been put to better use.

Sherards House is about 100 years old and has been in Council ownership for several decades during which time it has in the most part been used to provide temporary accommodation. In more recent times the land around the house was used to provide seven prefabricated bungalows, but these were removed a few years ago. Since the building became un-occupied, the Council has failed to carry out any maintenance to it, it has been vandalised and at least two fires have been reported.

Harlow Council made it’s first Planning Application in early 2022. Over 50 objections were received in response to the Plan. This Plan was so badly designed that a revised application had to be made in early 2023 and even then, many changes have had to be made to it. The main objections to the Plan agreed on 16 August can be summarised as follows:

  • The original Plan included land which the Council had failed to identify as a Public Right of Way. When it did become aware of this the site to be built on was moved Northwards, onto land which was not in the Local Plan and is not designated for housing use.
  • Over development of the site. One of the consequences of this is that The Highways Authority do not want to see the occupants of fourteen houses entering and exiting the estate from Three Horseshoes Road. Because of this, a garage access road will be used to access eleven of the new houses. Following comments about the lack of a footpath, the proposal was revised to include two, but this means the road will be just three metres wide, so vehicles will not be able to pass in and out of the estate at the same time.
  • Several mature trees within the site are to be removed to make way for the development. New trees will be dotted around the site, but many of these are close to the houses and will surely cause problems such as root damage and lack of daylight within houses.

Both Conservative and Labour Councillors supported this Planning Application, only Harlow Alliance supported residents with their objections. Far better to have converted the house into four flats and build seven bungalows for older residents, which in both the short and long term would have helped more people obtain a home from the Council’s Housing Register