Friends of Epping Forest
ANALYSIS and OBJECTIONS TO
the East of England Plan

The Plan itself sprawls over 300 pages: we've tried to distil it down to these few webpages.
Closing date for public consultation was 16 March
However that doesn't mean its dire threat has gone.
It still hangs over this fine Forest of ours and its surrounding area.
Below we outline the plan and possible awful consequences.
Map of proposed housing
Background info
Housing distribution
Transport
Green Belt
Stansted/M11 sub-area
Epping Forest District
How to protest/object/respond!

DEAR FRIEND, THANK-YOU!

Thank you to all Friends of Epping Forest for the splendid effort collecting signatures on
the Green Belt petition forms. The Friends collected over 9000 signatures and so together
with those collected by other local bodies Eleanor Laing M.P. for Epping Forest was able to
present to Parliament a Petition urging the Government to lay off the Green Belt, with over
13,000 signatures on it. A fantastic effort!
Apparently the Petition triggered-off nearly a thousand readers letters to Guardian Newspapers,
more than they've ever had on any subject!
AND NOW
As you recall, originally 18,600 houses were planned for Epping Forest District; that has now been
reduced to 11,000 still far too high and damaging to the Green Belt and the Forest, but a step in
the right direction. We cannot say that it was our Petition alone that brought about the reduction,
but we are sure it helped!
CPRE's concerns
Some Environment Report conclusions!
www.eera.gov.uk East england plan/planners

The map below shows roughly where it is planned that an extra 11,00 houses will be built locally,
(478,000! in the Region!)if the madness - sorry - 'PLAN' is not successfully contested.
too much building: too little space

Background:

A year or so ago DPM John Prescott instructed the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) - a body
with limited democratic credibility - to accommodate 478,000 housing units in the Region between 2001/2021.
Doubtless well before 2021 another Plan will be emerge for the subsequent 20 years demanding more inroads into the Green Belt and
more countryside be given up to housing and associated infrastructure. What happened to sustainability?
To accommodate Mr. Prescott's demands the EERA produced the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) now called,
the East of England Plan.
Its 300 pages was put it out to public consultation which EXPIRED on 16 MARCH.
Accompanying the Plan are 2 other documents, A Summary of the Pre-Submission Consultative Statement
and
A Summary of the Sustainability Approved Report.
A letter was also sent indicating that
"At the EERA meeting 5.11.04 the Assembly voted to submit the Draft E of E Plan to the Deputy Prime Minister".
In doing so they stated that "it would not be possible to deliver the increased growth rates demanded without significant
investment in infrastructure".
In December the Assembly deplored the Government's grossly inadequate transport infrastructure proposals. Bearing in mind
that the Assembly's acceptance of the massive growth imposed on the Region was conditional upon adequate Government provision
of the necessary infrastructure funding, "they now wished to make clear that they now regards their endorsement of the draft
Plan as suspended pending a re-examination of the Government's willingness to support it's own aspirations adequately in
financial terms".
Despite this, EERA wish to go ahead with the public consultation. Please note that the Plan is the document that will replace
County Structure Plans under the new system. Once the Plan is ratified by Government, local communities will have little
influence over developments in their area; Local Development Frameworks (which replace the old District Plans) will be mere
local interpretations and applications of policies imposed from above.

The E of E Plan is based on Government definition of sustainable development:
1. Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone
2. Effective protection of the Environment
3. Prudent use of natural resources
4. Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
Very different from Gro Bruntland definition when she was E.C. Commissioner for the Environment:
"Meeting the needs of the present without jeopardising the ability of future generations to meet theirs."


Housing Distribution

The Plan proposes to distribute the 478,000 homes around the Region as follows:
					Annual Average	Total 
Bedfordshire and Luton			535		10,700
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough 		4465		89,300
Essex, Southend, and Thurrock 		6170		123,000
Hertfordshire				3980		79,600
Norfolk					3630		72,600
In addition 43,000 are earmarked for the Milton Keynes area. Essex, as may be seen is much the biggest recipient of housing
development and much of this is concentrated around the so-called London Arc, which suggests that much of the population
destined to occupy these houses will derive via London. Many of these will continue to work in London and add to the heavy
commuting burden that our area, including the Forest, already bears. For instance, a proportion of the housing will be
'affordable' and destined for 'key workers' who cannot afford to buy in London and who consequently will join the commuters!

In fact the Plan rather desperately declares that it will "seek to ensure that job opportunities are
present prior to housing provision."
It is easy to write this in a document rather less easy, to deliver. Harlow was planned so that, people who lived there would
also work there and walk or cycle to their jobs. It hasn't worked out like that!

In fact the Plan (in 2.14) declares "It is not easy to predict the exact sources of future inward migration to the Region (to
occupy all the houses!) but if present trends continue the major gross flows into the Region will come from London
(approx. 40% of all in-migrants)and from overseas (20%)"

Nearly 5½ million people live in the Region. Given the proposed approx. l/2m homes and the virtually inevitable further
development after the Plan period, it is entirely possible that the Region's population could double in 30 years time. This
would lead to further massive environmental and quality of life deterioration that our children and grandchildren and others
will have to bear, assuming that they don't all emigrate to escape.
The separate S.E.A. (Environment Report) Chapter 4 states that "The baseline shows that a number of aspects of the environment
area are already seriously stressed by human impacts. Further development on any significant scale is likely to have serious
negative impacts on water resources, biodiversity, tranquillity, air quality, recreational access and congestion. The larger
the volume of development the harder it will be to avoid increased flood risk, erosion of the quality and distinctiveness of
settlements, the built environment and landscape".
The Report goes on to say that "it suspects that the level of growth proposed for the Region could be accommodated with much
less environmental damage in many other parts of the U.K. However studying this was beyond the remit of the Report and no
evaluation seems to have been carried out by the Government."

Transport

It is interesting that the Plan is based on Stansted Airport expanding only to the maximum capacity of the existing runway estimated: at 35mppa. On the other hand the Government plan for airports expansion envisages the construction of further runways at Stansted with the resultant vast, increase in passenger, numbers. If the Government's aspirations prevail there will be even more environmental and congestion damage not catered for in the Plan or assessed in the Environment Report! The Plan refers to the Regional Transport Strategy as a way of coping with all the housing and other development proposed. The objectives of the R.T.S. are to: 1. Improve opportunities to access jobs, services and leisure. 2. Enable infrastructure programmes and transport service provision to support both existing development and that proposed in the Plan. 3. Reduce need to travel (obviously doesn't apply to air travel!) 4. Reduce transport intensity of exonomic activity inc. freight. 5. Minimise environmental impact of transport provision and travel, protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment. 6. Improve safety and security. To achieve these objectives the RTS seeks to: 1. Widen travel choice : increasing and promoting opportunities for travel by means other than the private car, particularly walking, cycling and public transport, improving seamless travel through the provision of quality interchange facilities and raising travel awareness. 2. Promote the carriage of freight by rail and water and encourage environmentally sensitive distribution. 3. Stimulate efficient use of the existing transport infrastructure efficiently maintaining and managing existing road, rail, port and airport infrastructure. Later in the Plan at 8..17 it is admitted that movement of freight around the Region is largely by road (88% nationally!) Moreover there are upcoming proposals for large scale port developments at Shellhaven, Stanford-le-Hope (3.5 million containers per annum)and Haven Gateway, Harwich (3.2 million c.p.a.) The Plan acknowledges that if these proposals go ahead - which is likely - it will be necessary to re-consider regional and sub-regional investment priorities In these circumstances the objectives listed above, especially re movement of freight other than by road seem a touch unrealistic! Also unrealistic, in our view, is the notion that walking and cycling will make any significant impact on the travel scene. The Plan states at 8.17 that freight is a topic where the Regional Assembly will be considering further work (cynics would say words rather than work!)

Green Belt

The Plan accepts that the heavy developmental burden placed on the Region and Sub-Regions will require 'revision' of Green Belt boundaries, this despite John Prescott the Deputy Prime Minister's declaration in the national media that "we will preserve and extend the Green Belt in all our regions". The Plan indicates areas taken out of the G.B. will be replaced by including other areas within the G.B. The only way this can be done is to include areas adjacent to the outer perimeter which will mean that the G.B. will just move outwards. One of the stated purposes of the G.B. is to prevent settlements coalescing whereas this is exactly what will happen to Harlow and North Weald. Another point about G.Bs. is their permanence! In addition to the sections in the Plan on subjects, housing, transport etc. there are specific sections on each of the Sub-Regions. Ours is the
Stansted/Mll. Sub-Region!

Stansted/Ml1 Sub-Region

5.130 in the Plan states that "Harlow and the Lee Valley have a number of economic strengths. They need to capitalise on the economies of London and Cambridge and their strategic communication links and the Stansted growth focus. They are the key locations for significant inward economic investment in the sub-Region having more immediate potential than many other areas closer to Stansted Airport". So much for one of the objectives of the Regional Transport Strategy "to reduce the need for travel". Harlow is due for major expansion with at least 10,000 dwellings to the North and an additional 8,000 to the East (fill-in up to the M11) There would be a more limited (2,700) development (sustainable of course!) to the south and west. This will fill up much of the open countryside between Mark Bushes and Parndon Wood and to the west of the latter. This brings development dangerously close to Epping Long Green an Epping Forest outlier. A new extension eastwood to the A414 will be constructed to the north of Harlow and this will require a new access onto the Mil north of the Hastingwood access.

Eppinq Forest District

The major development here, apart from part of that around Harlow, mentioned above, to make-up the 11000 homes allocated, is the disappearance of the historic North Weald airfield - all Metropolitan Green Belt - under 6000 homes and 25 hectares (60 + acres) of employment land development. This will triple the size of North Weald and have the effect of creating a continuous connurbation with Harlow. An enlarged Hastingwood Roundabout will be required to try to cope with the increased traffic - more Green Belt countryside! - and park and ride facilities will be required at N.W. airfield and Harlow Town Station. These will "provide for high quality passenger transport access (bus!) to Harlow Town Centre and Stansted Airport". All this will impact on the Lower Forest and inevitably lead to pressure to expand Thornwood eastward to the M11. The Plan states at 5.142 that 'The Sub-Region already suffers peak time congestion on both road and rail networks with the competing demands of local traffic, commuting movements, through traffic and access to Stansted Airport. "A number of transport improvements are currently being implemented or planned (whatever these are they don't seem to have made any discernable improvement!)" "Additional traffic generated by proposed developments including Stansted expansion will require further improvements. The details of transportation infrastructure improvements will be informed by further studies currently underway". It would have been useful to know what these studies are going to prescribe because the present lines of communication southwards, the Central Line, Epping New Road, Sewardstone Road and M11 are all overcrowded, especially at peak times and there wouldn't seem to be much room for manoeuvre to say the least! The Forest is in the Way! The effect of all this development and associated traffic movements particularly into London and bearing in mind the enormous development envisaged along the Thames Gateway, adding around and through London traffic, will be to seriously increase the acknowledged congestion, pollution and quality of life deficits that already beset north east London, West Essex and Epping Forest. The Local Transport plan, evolved over recent years has recognised the negative effects both biological and recreational on Epping Forest caused by traffic penetration and atmospheric, air and noise pollution and seeks to mitigate these aspects by reducing traffic through the Forest. However these attempts will be destroyed by the unsustainable levels of development in the East of England Plan. Go
HERE to read an extract from the Essex Protector (CPRE's Newsletter) which gives a synopsis of their view of the Plan's proposals and the Environment Report as they affect the County as a whole. We are of course concerned about that aspect but crucially we have our own misgivings especially relating to the loss of Green Belt countryside and the effect of all the traffic generation on Epping Forest and the area generally. EERA asks that comments on the Plan be submitted on a form copied at their website. The key Chapters - for the top of the form - are: 5. Sub-Regional and sub area policies (Green Belt etc.) 7. Housing (over development) 8. Transport (congestion, pollution, lack of infrastructure. 9. Environmental Resources (water, flood, using up of agricultural land)

The closing date to object officially to this 'plan' has passed but for further info or just to get it off your chest, the following may be useful... The Plan may be downloaded from www.eera.gov.uk it's past the closing date, But... the Planning department's email address is: plannning@eera.gov.uk It was quite simple to register and submit your response online at this web location of theirs...

Theydon Bois Preservation Society have done a useful rundown of views and responses which can be accessed at www.theydon.org.uk. This may seem wordy, but we have done our best to pick out and comment on the salient points of the E.F. Plan and Environment Report and give something of their flavour which seems to us to be largely to try to cover the problems by the use of the plan's excessive wordage! Honest!
To add grist for your mill, go HERE to read some Conclusions drawn from the Environment Report! Keep in view that the piece in italics should be read that if the policies were NOT present it would be even more difficult to cope with the level of development proposed! As the response form indicates, it should be used for one subject only but may be copied for use on further subjects. On the other hand we understand the EERA are prepared to accept letters although to guarantee that your objections (we assume that you WILL object!) will be given due weight it would be best to structure the missive with headings: General, Housing, etc. etc. We hope that we have given enough information for members to make their objections. There would be absolutely no harm in making objections of a general nature particularly the vast housing numbers imposed on the Region and the resultant congestion, loss of countryside and tranquillity. However the important points for the Friends to make is the enormous effect on the Forest of the major loss of Green Belt via expansion of Harlow, especially to the east, west and south and the destruction of the historic North Weald Battle of Britain airfield for housing and employment etc. Furthermore there is no strategy in the Plan to cope with the acknowledged problems of increased commuting into London which will impinge on the already congested Forest Roads. You can, if you wish, quote the following for a letter of 15th March 2004 from Prescott to Ian Duncan Smith: "I am pleased to give you the assurance you seek that the Government would not accept development proposals - whether from EERA, local authorities developers - that would threaten the conservation value of the Forest". He goes on to say "However the conservation and enhancement of the Forest setting should not be confused with the identification of suitable locations to meet the regions development needs that are well away from the Forest and where development would not impact an its conservation" See Epping Forest District heading above re Epping Long Green and Lower Forest. Address your responses to: The Panel Secretary, c/o East of England Regional Assembly, Flempton House, Flempton, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6EG Please copy your objections to us, your MP and, if you wish, to Rt. Hon. John Prescott, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 26 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2WH CLICK HERE to go back to the top of this web page... st md ch