Home News Harlow North: Ideas behind the town An emerging plan for Harlow North Timeline Have your say Your questions answered Frequently asked questions Key facts and figures Glossary of terms Further information Contact us		Questions and answers are listed under the following headings: Regeneration | Environment | Housing Click here to ask a question Regeneration The new Government has vowed to scrap the East of England Plan. How will this affect your sale to NHJV which I understand has not been completed? Ropemaker and Harlow North Joint Venture (HNJV) remain committed to the development of Harlow North. As stated in your information, the High Court stage took place in Spring 2009. Are we getting Harlow North or is it just another fantasy project to waste more money on? Ropemaker Properties Limited is sellling its land holdings to HNJV Limited, a joint venture between Land Securities and Places for People. HNJV held a series of stakeholder events in late 2009. Information on how HNJV will be taking the project forward can be found at www.northharlow.com This website has provided a valuable opportunity to question your plans for Harlow North, and through it you have expressed a number of assurances and commitments. To what extent will those hold good when you complete the sale of the site to Land Securities? We are pleased that the website has been of use and has provided a valuable opportunity for stakeholder engagement. Community engagement is integral to the way both Land Securities and Places For People operate. Once the sale is completed, HNJV will continue to respond to questions received. I am reliably informed that the Growth Area Fund (GAF) Scheme - A414 Upgrading between Burnt Mills Roundabout and East Wick Roundabout aims to eventually upgrade the A414 between Burnt Mills Roundabout and Eastwick Roundabout to dual two lane carriageways. An outline design for a left slip from the A414 Harlow taking northbound traffic into Hertfordshire has been completed and a small area traffic model is being built to test and refine the proposals. How does this affect your concept for a Living Bridge which you seem to imply is essential to ensure connectivity between Harlow and Harlow North? Harlow North has been promoted as an urban extension and integration with existing communities has always been seen as a vital element. There are likely to be a number of ways of securing that integration, one of which is the concept of the living bridge. When the masterplanning of the urban extension moves on to the next stage, that process will explore the options for achieving integration. Today (March 26th) Transport Geoff Hoon confirmed no enhancements to the section between junction eight at Bishop's Stortford and junction six at Loughton were now needed until at least 2021. The Government seem reluctant to invest in new infrastructure associated with their housing ambitions. How does this affect your plans? The Secretary of State's announcement does not affect the plans for Harlow North. The accompanying report makes it clear that the need for and timing of the works between junctions 6 and 8 takes into account forecast growth in the region. Page 82 states: "9.2.13 The overall transport model takes account of proposed regional development, economic growth, development of highway infrastructure and changes in public transport provision in producing regional traffic forecasts." Development at Harlow North can proceed without these improvements to the M11. We do not see this announcement as a lack of Government commitment to funding infrastructure. Simply the technical work undertaken has identified that the works are not needed before 2021 at the earliest. Housing Minister Caroline Flint set out the Government's latest proposals for the UK's toughest ever green standards for new housing as she unveiled a progress report on eco-towns. Underlining the Government's determination that only the best quality schemes with very high sustainability standards should qualify for eco-town status, the standards being developed are set to include: Achieving zero carbon status across all the town's buildings, including commercial and public buildings as well as homes - a significantly tougher threshold than any existing or agreed targets Allocating 40 per cent of land within the town to be green space, at least half of which should be open to the public as parks or recreation areas Providing a minimum of 30 per cent affordable housing to provide more homes for social rent and assist those struggling to get on the housing ladder Creating more options for travel and reducing residents' reliance on the car to enable the majority of journeys to be made by sustainable transport, such as public transport, walking and cycling Ensuring a minimum of one job per house can be reached by sustainable transport to reduce dependence on the car Locating the average home within 10 minutes walk of frequent public transport and everyday neighbourhood services Raising the threshold for individual homes so that they must all achieve at least level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, which includes standards for household waste recycling, construction waste, water efficiency measures and reduced pollution As you applied for eco-town status are you prepared to meet all these goals? Ropemaker Properties Limited has promoted the North Harlow scheme as one of sustainability excellence. Land Securities and Places for People share this objective, which was reflected in the decision to bid for eco-town status. Whether these detailed standards are the most appropriate for an integrated urban extension to Harlow, as opposed to a free-standing new settlement, will be considered by the design team in taking forward a sustainable development at North Harlow. In your response to the proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan you indicated that you would be making an outline planning application by 2Q2009. As the plan was delayed a year is the expectation that this will now be 2Q2010? Or have you washed your hand of this and the responsibility now lies with Land Securities/ Making Places? Making Places and Land Securities are in the process of acquiring Ropemaker's land holdings. That involves conducting an extensive due diligence process, out of which the planning strategy and timing of any application will emerge. No decisions have yet been taken on the timing of any planning application. You have often stated that a Harlow bypass is not necessary for your scheme. You have now stated that financial payments related to planning gain that are not directly related to addressing the needs of the project might be regarded as extraneous and hence ultra vires. This implies you will contest being asked to contribute to funding a Harlow bypass. Is that correct? The Proposed Changes and Further Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan indicate that the Secretary of State expects relevant local authorities and other government agencies to work in partnership to establish the planning framework for Harlow and its urban extensions, which will include neceesary transport proposals to support the regeneration and growth of Harlow (Policy HA1 refers). The draft plan contain no policy requirement, express or implied, that a Harlow bypass is a prerequisite of growth at Harlow. It will be for the Partnership to determine transport options to support the growth and regeneration strategy. Ropemaker Properties Limited considers there are a range of transport options which should be considered including comprehensive public transport improvements as well as new road building. The Harlow North scheme will make a commensurate contribution to the transport needs of the area when the strategy for transport improvements is determined. On 19th Nov you stated "Ropemaker Properties Limited is currently seeking a development partner to progress the scheme through the planning process and an announcement will be made when the selection process has been completed" On 22nd Nov you stated "Ropemaker Properties Limited is aware that Places for People has acquired interests in land at Eastwick which include an option to purchase land in the ownership of Ropemaker" As these deals are not done in 5 minutes, could you explain why you were not more open with me on 19th Nov? Is the selection process now complete? The selection process by Ropemaker Properties Limited to secure a development partner to progress its interests is ongoing and an announcement will be made when the selection process has been completed. It would not be appropriate for Ropemaker Properties Limited to comment on the actions of other landowners. The option to purchase land in the ownership of Ropemaker has been in existence for over twelve years. Places for People has announced their acquistion of 38 acres of land at Eastwick Lodge to the north of Harlow with the option to purchase a further 457 acres at a later date. Was any of this land in your ownership and how does it affect your masterplan? Ropemaker Properties Limited is aware that Places for People has acquired interests in land at Eastwick which include an option to purchase land in the ownership of Ropemaker. This has no implications for the Master Plan for Harlow North as it was always anticipated that the scheme would require the co-operation of a number of landowners at implementation stage. Our campaign has become aware of rumours that you have sold land north of Harlow to British Land. Are you in a position to confirm this purchase? As previously advised, Ropemaker Properties Limited is currently seeking a development partner to progress the scheme through the planning process and an announcement will be made when the selection process has been completed. At your meeting with the Environment Agency on 22/11/2005 you minuted that " Ropemaker argued the case that there is "a significant overriding need" for the the Living Bridge from the perspective of urban sustainability and regeneration and therefore that it does constitute "essential infrastructure"." Today 24th July 2007 you responded to a question about building on the floodplain by saying " The inclusion of built development on the 'Bridge' would further enhance the connectivity between new and old but it is not essential to creating connectivity" Why have you changed your mind? Is built development on the Living Bridge still part of your scheme? Ropemaker Properties Limited considers that while the Living Bridge would be a highly desirable contribution to effecting connectivity between existing Harlow and new development north of the Stort, it is not essential as there are other alternatives which could be considered such as strong activity nodes at either end of the causeway. Accordingly Ropemaker considers there is no contradiction in suggesting that the Living Bridge could be regarded as 'essential infrastructure' for the purposes of the approach of the Environment Agency to flood risk, but it is not essential to securing adequate connectivity. Thank you for your considered response, ref: 'village vernacular'. Can you please within the www.harlownorth.com web-resource include visualisations showing the variety of contemporary architectural design styles that may be employed within the development. The general impression portrayed is only that of a 'Village/Rural' architectural style. Whereas, from the answer you already have kindly provided, it sounds as though this aspect is more to do with the desirable concept of attempting to create communities, that are anticipated to function with a village-like dynamic, rather than just alluding to this notion through a nostalgic style of buildings. The consultative stage of the project should not should not just show proposed buildings that are as such 'easy-on-the-eye' and that the general public may be more prone to accept. If the intention is to draw from a broader design remit, then this is a fundamental element of the proposal and should be clearly expressed from the outset. I consider the use of a broad range of contemporary architectural styles as an important positive, in favour of supporting the development, against the environmental negatives resulting from consuming so much 'green-field' land. Ropemaker Properties Limited envisages that any Building or Design Code would be the subject of local consultation and public involvement prior to its adoption by the planning authority and subsequent implementation. If the principle of development to the north of Harlow is confirmed through the East of England Plan, anticipated later this year, more detailed consideration will be given to siting, layout and design issues. Rather than witness a poor quality of modern architecture and built environment (as was evident with the original Harlow New Town) perhaps a pastiche reconstruction in the local vernacular is preferable for Harlow North. But it is an admission of failure in the developer's ability to commission viable modern design that this 'village vernacular' design style is yet again advocated to be adopted. This development should be making contemporary architectural statements about our times that will be of an enduring value for future generations to reflect upon and enjoy. Has the option for a contemporary architectural style been considered and if so can the visualisations be made available on the website so the public consultation can be extended to a debate on architectural style and if we have confidence in expressing the truth of this development's historical origination. Design work undertaken on the proposals for Harlow North has, to date, focussed primarily on developing an urban form that responds positively to the need to create more sustainable living and working environments and which relates satisfactorily to the existing urban area. As a consequence, the form of the development takes the form of walkable neighbourhoods, centred around neighbourhood centres with roads being replaced by streets that combine the traditional mix of movement with human activity and enterprise and which are accessible by walking, cycling or public transport. The proposals provide for greater permeability for movement within the urban envirnonment with mixed use to secure a more varied urban texture in land use, density and overall appearance. Ropemaker Properties Limited acknowedges that the scheme should incorporate appropriate approaches to design for individual buildings and street blocks which should not necessarily be constrained by 'village' vernacular styles. Indeed, the need to adopt a more sustainable approach to building design and layout may encourage more diverse forms of architectural styles and approaches. Ropemaker Properties Limited intends that the final form of development will be informed by a 'Building Code' - this will set out an overall context and framework in which individual proposals should be conceived. At the current stage of the planning process, no detailed consideration has been been given to the Building Code. What arrangements are you making to alleviate the horrendous traffic problem through Sawbridgeworth along the main road and what provisions will you make for the traffic that will be generated between Harlow North and Bishops Stortford/Stansted Airport? The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan indicate that, in respect of Harlow, any proposals to allocate land for development will be preceded by an options study to be undertaken jointly by a range of local authorities and statutory agencies. This study will consider "the planning framework for Harlow and its urban extensions in accordance with this RSS and develop transport proposals and an implementation strategy to support its regeneration and growth". Ropemaker Properties would envisage that the A1184 would fall within the study area for both the expansion of Harlow and other proposals for the expansion of Stansted Airport and settlerments in the locality. While the outcome of the study cannot be anticipated it is considered likely to propose a range of measures including traffic management, new roadbuilding, improvements to existing public transport infrastructure and encouragement to reduce use of the private car generally by lifestyle changes, e.g. mixed use development, walkable neighbourhoods. Are you concerned about the delay in publishing the draft East of England Plan which is now expected no earlier than autumn 2007? Ropemaker Properties Limited notes the recent announcement by the Government Office for the East of England to delay publication of the East of England Plan. The announcement indicates that the delay is in order to permit additional work to be undertaken to ensure the final Plan complies with the Habitats Directive. While this delay is to be regretted in the context of providing for the housing and other needs of the region, we note the advice to local authorities is that they should continue to progress their Local Development Documents to agreed programmes. In your response to the Proposed Changes you are asking for a transport review which does "not rely on major new strategic road building". Does this signify your complete and total lack of support for a Harlow bypass? The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan indicates that 'in regard to transport, the options appraisal work should scope the issues in a comprehensive way and develop an implementation programme, which complements and supports the development strategy'. Ropemaker Properties Ltd supports this approach and considers that it is important that the study is not predicated on the basis that the only potential approach to addressing the strategic and local movement issues in and around Harlow require the construction of a bypass. The final strategy developed by the highway authorities is likely to include a wide range of measures which may include new road building, investment in public transport infrastructure as well as initiatives relating to cycling and pedestrian movement. In your response to the Proposed Changes you state " District Councils are unlikely to be able to manage what Ropemaker believes could become the largest single concentration of urban growth in England, at least in relation to the size of the existing settlement. The impact of this growth is tantamount to remaking the town". Have you discussed "remaking the town" with any local elected members or Harlow Renaisssance? Ropemaker Properties Ltd has had no discussions with Harlow Council or Harlow Renaissance concerning the implications of the growth of Harlow upon the existing town. We would envisage that such implications would form part of the context for the Options Study for Harlow, as set out in the Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan. It is likely that any modifications to the existing planning strategy for Harlow would be carried forward through the relevant Local Development Framework. In your response to the Proposed Changes you state "Ropemaker Properties Limited considers that in order to establish the town as a sustainable regional centre development, doubling the size of existing Harlow will be necessary." Can you explain the link between size and regeneration? A recent audit at GO-East indicated that most civil servants did not understand the linkage. The regeneration of Harlow will require substantial investment that is likely to be predominantly obtained through private funding rather than public funding mechanisms. The expansion of Harlow will increase the local population base and this will provide a greater critical mass to support an enhanced local offer of retail activities, leisure uses and other services. Major development will also facilitate the enhancement of transport and other physical infrastructure through new investment, that in part will help address existing infrastructure deficits in the town. In your response to the Proposed Changes you state " Ropemaker considers that it would be possible to make a start on at least a first phase of development up to 3500, and maybe up to 5000 homes, without the need for major new infrastructure or utilities". Can you explain how this will be possible without overburdening the existing infrastructure which most locals believe is already under severe strain? The proposals for Harlow North envisage that infrastructure to serve the new development would be provided commensurate with the development programme. Much of this is necessarily directly related to the construction of new housing, employment and other development, e.g. roads, public transport enhancement, community and social facilities as well as physical infrastructure in the form of services and drainage. Ropemaker Properties Ltd considers that to address the pressing requirement for new housing and jobs, targeted new investment in infrastructure could permit an initial phase of development to be progressed before larger scale investment in strategic infrastructure was undertaken to support the full extent of the regeneration and expansion proposed for Harlow. Ropemaker assumes that a planning permission would only be granted on condition that the scheme either provides infrastructure made necessary by the scheme or makes an appropriate contribution to the costs of such strategic infrastructure. March 2007: it's not clear at the present time how the additional cars will be dealt with getting in/out and within Harlow, and also in the surrounding areas, eg to A10 via A414 and through Sawbridgeworth to get to Bishops Stortford. Can you let me know how the extra 20, 000 cars will be accomodated by your plans? The Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan, published by the Secretary of State in December 2006, indicates that a comprehensive review of transport infrastructure will be undertaken as an integral element of determining the scale of growth for each of the urban extensions to Harlow. The study will doubtless consider all options including the need for new roads, and/or investment in enhanced bus and rail facilities. One of the Government's objectives in promoting large scale extensions to existing settlements is that they would be instrumental in reducing the number of car trips by ensuring employment, facilities and services are located close to where people live. could you please confirm whether there are to be residential moorings available on the new proposed marina`s and with whom i need to register my name with to get on the list, thanks The proposals for a marina as part of the development of Harlow North are at the conceptual stage at the present time. No decisions have yet been made about the form of any moorings and whether they might contain an element of residential moorings; we regret your enquiry is premature at the present time. Will Harlow North be a "new town" or an integral part of the existing town? It cannot be both. Ropemaker Properties Ltd intends that Harlow North should be an integral part of Harlow, with appropriate physical and functional links between the urban extension and the existing town. On the Politics Show on Feb 4th 2007 Mr Smales was seen arguing that Harlow North would be a new "town". Have you now given up all pretence that Harlow north is an urban extension that is meant to help regenerate Harlow? Ropemaker Properties Ltd intends that proposals for an urban extension to the north of Harlow should function as a series of planned neighbourhoods, designed as 'new town' rather than housing estates, as an integral part of Harlow Town. More than a year ago you stated " Modelling of future traffic movements in the Greater Harlow area, that considers existing crossings, improved existing crossings and new crossings, is currently being undertaken by consultants acting on behalf of Ropemaker Properties Limited, but these studies have not yet been concluded." Are these studies complete now and will you publish them? The traffic modelling studies have not yet been completed. Any formal traffic assessment would be submitted to accompany a planning application, if and when a planning application was submitted to the local planning authority. You state in you FAQs " Major investment in infrastructure is planned for the whole town, particularly a public transport system that would reduce congestion and enable efficient movement throughout". Can you describe the major transport schemes that are included in the Proposed Changes to the East of England Plan? The previous list of transport infrastructure schemes contained in the Draft East of England Plan, is replaced in the Proposed Changes by a more wide ranging review of transport options to address the future transportation needs of the Greater Harlow area. Why has the section on Consultation been removed from this web site? You have been criticised for a lack of consultation with the local community after promising an open and transparent dialogue. Are you embarrassed by the Q&A and so have removed it? The format of the website, which was set up almost three years ago, has been updated. There is still a 'Question and Answer' facility for questions related to the planning and design of the Harlow North proposals. The Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan suggest that building to the north would need a lead in period of 5 to 10 years to allow for a push on regeneration of the existing town. This would mean your proposals could not commence before 2012. Do you agree? Ropemaker Properties Ltd considers that by expeditious action by the local planning authorities it would be possible to shorten the period before the various urban extensions contribute to meeting the housing and other needs of the area. You earlier stated " The draft East of England Plan contains a comprehensive set of proposals to improve the transport infrastructure in the general vicinity of Harlow. This includes rail capacity enhancements, a Harlow northern bypass, park and ride facilities, high quality public transport route, public transport access improvements, improvements to the A1184 and improvements to junctions 7 and 8 of the M11" Are all these still included in Ruth Kelly's Proposed Changes? If not which have been removed? Please see the Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan. The previous list of transport infrastructure schemes contained in the Draft East of England Plan, is replaced in the Proposed Changes by a more wide ranging review of transport options to address the future transportation needs of the Greater Harlow area. Brian Tisdall is quoted as saying " "We look forward to the relevant local authorities making early progress on setting up the necessary administrative arrangements to carry these proposals forward." when referring to Ruth Kelly's Proposed Changes. What did he have in mind? The Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan indicate that to progress the proposals for 'Greater Harlow' there will be a need for joint or coordinated Local Development Documents, informed by an options appraisal study to consider the appropriate distribution of development between the urban extensions and associated need for infrastructure. Do you believe Ruth Kelly's department has provided a clear rationale for ignoring the independent Panel's recommendation to reject Harlow North? If so, what is that rationale? Yes. The rationale of the Secretary of State is set out in the Proposed Changes under the response to Panel recommendation R5.10. The Sustainability report on the Proposed Changes of the East Of England Plan states "Future large scale developments north of Harlow may reduce the effectiveness of regeneration and renewal in the existing town centre". Do you agree with this statement? If not why not? Ropemaker Properties Ltd considers that regeneration initiatives would be assisted by growth, not least because a significant increase in population is needed to enable the higher level facilities and services and wider range of job opportunities to be provided in a form that is viable in the longer term. Were you aware that the business plan for Harlow Renaissance Limited specifically excludes applications for Board membership from land owners and developers? This question falls outside the scope of this website as it does not relate to the design and planning of the proposals for Harlow North. Owners of land in the north of Harlow have created Halo Development Trust. What is Ropemakers relationship with this Trust? 2nd Nov The Harlow North web site is intended to provide a facility to inform interested parties about the design and planning of the proposals for Harlow North. Is is not intended to act as a vehicle for others' schemes. Ropemaker Properties Ltd is not a member of the Halo Development Trust. The proposals for Gilston Great Park include the option to develop educational facilities and even environmental research facilities (biofuels) so long as they were sympathetic to the current landscape and sustainable? Are these types of activies of any interest to Ropemakers or BP? 1st Nov The Harlow North web site is intended to provide a facility to inform interested parties about the design and planning of the proposals for Harlow North. It is not intended to act as a vehicle for others' schemes. Has Ropemakers, or any of your partners in the Harlow North team, applied for any of the private sector Board members positions on Harlow Renaissance Ltd or do they have any intention of applying now a Chief Executive has been appointed? 27th Oct 2006 No The quote from PORA in your recent newsletter implies that if you applied the same criteria for rejecting Harlow North to the south and west of Harlow building should be rejected there as well. PORA do not appear to be endorsing building to the north. Is that correct? Campaigning groups around Harlow have been very carfeul not to point at other areas (other than a crass attempt by Bill Rammell, MP this summer) and single them out for development. Was you inclusion of this quote meant to be an attempt to break that consensus and divide communties around Harlow? If not what was its purpose? Ropemaker Properties Ltd has set out its views on the Panel Report and has nothing further to add. Why do you say that "The draft East of England Plan contains no policy requirement, express or implied, that a Harlow bypass is a prerequisite of growth at Harlow", when the East of England Plan states a policy that includes "an outer bypass to the north of the existing urban area of Harlow from the A414 to the M11to provide improved access to strategic growth locations"? There can be no doubt of the linkage that EERA makes between a bypass and growth at Harlow North. The planning advisors to Ropemaker Properties Ltd comment that there is no indication in policy ST6 that a bypass is a prerequisite of growth at Harlow. Has anyone from your team met with anyone from Harlow Rennaiassance Ltd. the regeneration company set up in Harlow? Since the fanfare of its launch in March 2006 there has been no news of this company. This question falls outside the scope of this website as it does not directly relate to the design and planning of the proposals for Harlow North Are you interested in discussing the ideas for Gilston Great Park now your proposals have been rejected by the Panel examining the draft East of England Plan? Oct 16th The reaction of Ropemaker Properties Ltd to the 'Gilston Great Park' document and comments solicited thereon have been the subject of a press release. Ropemaker Properties Ltd will make a formal response to the document in due course in writing. Are you in agreement with proposals but before RTAG, an officer committee at EERA, that the East of England Police Authorities and the British Transport Police, acting through their Chief Constables, should seek to negotiate planning obligations towards policing via Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? The matter of the scope of financial and other obligations to be addressed through a S106 agreement would be a matter for negotiation with the local planning authority. Ropemaker Properties Ltd is not aware that either East Herts or Harlow Councils currently seek contributions to ongoing policing operations although the planning advisors to Ropemaker Properties Ltd note that contributions to new police buildings is not uncommon on major development projects. The Commission for Racial Equality sees "regeneration as a multibillion pound industry that has an impact on every member of the community. If these decisions are not made with the cooperation and blessing of local people after proper consultation, then the result can be badly planned regeneration projects that lead to segregation and displaced communities and increase local tensions." (Guardian 9th Oct). Do you agree with these views? Ropemaker Properties Ltd notes these views. The overall responsibility for the regeneration of Harlow will be the responsibility of the various local government bodies and agencies and doubtless they will have regard to this advice in progressing regeneration strategies for the town. In respect of the Harlow North proposals, Ropemaker Properties Ltd has previously stated that it will undertake a programme of public involvement prior to the submission of any planning application. You state on this Q&A that " Surveys undertaken on behalf of Ropemaker Properties Ltd indicated the past presence of Water Voles along the Stort and Stort Navigation although no signs of recent activity were found in the survey area. There was no evidence of the presence of water voles along the Eastwick Valley Stream, Fiddler's Brook and the High Wych Valley Stream" At you meeting with the Environment Agency on 2/11/2005 you state "Some evidence of water voles" Which is these statements is correct? 4th Oct 2006 There is no contradiction in the statements, evidence was found of the past presence of voles but no evidence was found of existing vole activity. A full description and analysis of flora and fauna in the application site would be included within an Environmental Statement that will be prepared if and when it is decided to progress a planning application for Harlow North. Why do you say that "The draft East of England Plan contains no policy requirement, express or implied, that a Harlow bypass is a prerequisite of growth at Harlow", when the East of England Plan states a policy that includes "an outer bypass to the north of the existing urban area of Harlow from the A414 to the M11to provide improved access to strategic growth locations"? There can be no doubt of the linkage that EERA makes between a bypass and growth at Harlow North. The planning advisors to Ropemaker Properties Ltd comment that there is no indication in policy ST6 that a bypass is a prerequisite of growth at Harlow. The quote from PORA in your recent newsletter implies that if you applied the same criteria for rejecting Harlow North to the south and west of Harlow building should be rejected there as well. PORA do not appear to be endorsing building to the north. Is that correct? Campaigning groups around Harlow have been very carfeul not to point at other areas (other than a crass attempt by Bill Rammell, MP this summer) and single them out for development. Was you inclusion of this quote meant to be an attempt to break that consensus and divide communties around Harlow? If not what was its purpose? Ropemaker Properties Ltd has set out its views on the Panel Report and has nothing further to add. What is your reaction to the recent job losses in Harlow announced in the STAR: "Arms manufacturer Raytheon Systems, in Pinnacles, announced on Monday that 53 staff will go due to changes to its engineering department. The news comes just three weeks after Tesco announced it is cutting 90 jobs from its Pinnacles distribution centre. In addition, at least 50 Pitney Bowes staff will lose their jobs when it closes its Templefields site next year to centralise export operations in Europe." Sept 28th Ropemaker Properties Ltd regrets the recent loss of jobs in Harlow but would comment that it reinforces the need to reinvigorate the Harlow economy through strategic scale growth of jobs and housing, through schemes such as Harlow North. The picture on the front of your recent newsletter does not show a northern bypass but it does show a road leaving the proposed development to the north. Can you explain where that road might go and its purpose? The route to the north of the developed area is intended to link to the proposed Forest Park. The form of the route, e.g. road, shared pedestrian/cycleway would be a matter for discussion at detailed design stage. The only time you met with the parish councils to the north of Harlow was in 2004. Then you stated that these villages would be screened from the development by hedges.(!!!) You now seem to be stating something different; that " they would be come part of an interconnected network of smaller local centres. Can you clarify? The design of Ropemaker's proposals has evolved over the last two years, although some 'screening by hedges' might be appropriate as part of a wider landscape strategy for the peripheral areas of the scheme; it should be remembered that traditional hedges often incorporate sizeable trees. The recent newsletter states very clearly that 'Hunsdon lies beyond the area proposed for development and the gap between the village and the nearest neighbourhood will be carefully planned to maintain a level of separation'. The villages of Eastwick, Gilston and High Wych, which are are located within the proposed scheme, will require a different design approach. This should focuses on the need for physical integration of new and old, through landscaping, siting of built development and appropriate connections to form part of an interconnected series of neighbourhoods. The position of the Regional Assembly that the Harlow Northern bypass is absolutely necessary and a prerequisite to development north of Harlow was confirmed by public question at the full Assembly meeting in December 2005 ( It was first mentioned during public questions in December 2004 but ,we believe, not properly minuted) and recorded in the minutes of that meeting that were approved in July 2006. While the Assembly states the position is under continuous review it is their stated position that the northern bypass is a prerequisite for development to the north. Why do you call this an assertion ( you have obviously not taken the time to attend these meetings) and will you now answer the previously posed question? Ropemaker Properties Ltd has already addressed this question in previous answers. The draft East of England Plan contains no policy requirement, express or implied, that a Harlow bypass is a prerequisite of growth at Harlow. Your 'position statement' on the independent inspector's report states that "The Panel accept the general proposition that the greater the number of potential locations for growth, the greater the prospect will be for achieving delivery, but fail to follow this principle in Harlow where a reduced number of locations for growth are proposed." The inspector said that his recommendations to "refocus on the opportunities within Harlow and other directions of growth to the east, south and west of the town...we would see a strategy concentrating on a number of directions for growth, while avoiding the distractions of planning for major "satellite" settlements as capable of producing early progress in development and securing gains for regeneration within the town." Do you not see that this represents the principle being followed exactly? Ropemaker Properties Limited has made known its views on the Panel's findings by letter and through this web site, as a matter of general interest. The Panel's findings are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comment on issues raised by the Panel at this time. Your 'position statement' on the independent inspector's report states that "The reduced housing allocation proposed by the Panel for ?Greater Harlow' will not provide a sufficient growth dynamic to the local economy to secure the regeneration of the town through direct provision of, or financial contributions to, strategic infrastructure." Can you provide any evidence for this statement, or is it simply an opinion - which the independent inspector and many others do not share? Ropemaker Properties Limited has made known its views on the Panel's findings by letter and through this web site, as a matter of general interest. The Panel's findings are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comment on issues raised by the Panel at this time. In your response to the Panel report on the East of Engalnd Plan you do not appear to have brought forward any new planning arguments for Harlow North that have not already been thoroughly explored at the EiP. The paper simply appears to be an attack on the conclusions the Panel drew from ALL the evidence presented to them. Is that correct? Ropemaker Properties Limited has made known its views on the Panel's findings by letter and through this web site, as a matter of general interest. The Panel's findings are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comment on issues raised by the Panel at this time. You recently answered that you were not plannning to upgrade the A414 across the "living bridge" but use the existing structure. Your diagrams show a tree lined boulevard with additional parking along the bridges length. Could you explain what you are actually proposing? The illustrative designs envisage the use of the existing causeway to carry the A414 with the buildings carried on cantilevered slabs supported by piles. In response to an earlier question you say that "We believe publication [of the regeneration document prepared by the Ropemaker team] before the outcome of the EiP is known would be premature." Will you publish it now? The findings of the Panel into the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly Ropemaker Properties Limited anticipates that its regeneration strategy will be published as part of its response to the Proposed Modifications. Bill Rammell, MP for Harlow, issued a press release following the Independent Inspector's of the draft East of England Plan, in which he argued that removal of the Harlow North proposal would reduce investment in roads, public transport and public services in the existing town. Have you ever made any commitment or even intimated that Ropemakers would fund infrastructure within the existing boundaries of Harlow? The matter of the scope and extent of developer contributions to strategic and other infrastructure is an issue that it is normal practice to consider at the time a planning application is prepared and submitted under well established principles. Accordingly, Ropemaker Properties Ltd has made no commitment to fund specific infrastructure at this time, but would expect to enter into discussions with the local planning authority and others, at the planning application stage of the planning process. Agreed contributions to, or direct provision of, identified infrastructure would be enshrined in a legal agreement, prior to the grant of planning permission, that would be binding on the developer and subsequent owners of the land. With unemployment rising again is there a risk that further house building in the south east will further exacerbate the large misalignment of jobs and workers in the Stanted/ M11 corridor? The planning consultants to Ropemaker Properties Ltd advise that the housebuilding rates are strongly correlated to the performance of the economy, even though there may be a time lag between the two. In practice if the economy performs less well than in the immediate past there is likely to be a commensurate slow down in housing completions and vice versa. Parick Butler in the Guardian writes of the Lea valley regeneartion " Property developers, however, have an uncanny knack for exploiting failures of political will on the part of planning authorities: unregulated, their interests dovetail naturally with those of the privileged few. It is always easier and more profitable to build the gated community, rather than affordable family homes, the cheap flat aimed at buy-to-let investors, rather than the eco-friendly house. The dream is seductive; the nightmare is that the young, the poor and the elderly in Water City's hinterland are excluded from its jobs, wealth and opportunites - that the last major regeneration opportunity in London becomes another ghetto for the rich." How will your proposals avoid this situation? Harlow North is not intended to comprise one or more "gated communities", rather it is a key principle of our proposals that it be fully integrated with the existing town of Harlow. Through good design principles, the neighbourhoods of Harlow North should comprise inclusive communities that are mixed in terms of age, income, and other attributes. The buildings will be designed and built to the highest environmental and other standards, and will include a mix of tenures and types including affordable housing. How might you address the concerns in the Inspector's report that: "The proposed strategy, in relying on "satellite" settlements rather than urban extensions integrated with the town, runs the risk that these will function as rival attractions in terms of the housing market and economic activity" and "...we would see a strategy concentrating on a number of directions for growth, while avoiding the distractions of planning for major "satellite" settlements as capable of producing early progress in development and securing gains for regeneration within the town" This question relates to the findings of the Panel that held the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. Ropemaker Properties Limited has made known its views on the Panel's findings by letter and through this web site, as a matter of general interest. The Panel's findings are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comment on issues raised by the Panel at this time. Do you support the EiP Panel conclusion that ; "We therefore conclude that the strategy should refocus on the opportunities within Harlow and other directions of growth to the east, south and west of the town, reflecting the conclusions of the Growth Area Study (SRS10 paragraph 11.6.21) and the proposals originally contained in the "banked draft" RPG14." ? This question relates to the findings of the Panel that held the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. Ropemaker Properties Limited has made known its views on the Panel's findings by letter and through this web site, as a matter of general interest. The Panel's findings are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comment on issues raised by the Panel at this time. Do you agree with the Panel report where it states " some of the merits claimed for the Ropemaker proposals are not exclusive to the Harlow north location, and in some respects the nature of the proposals reinforces scepticism about what the development would contribute to the town of Harlow and its regeneration. As well as being physically separate from the rest of the town, and beyond reasonable local walking distance, Harlow north would have its own direct connection to the M11 via the proposed northern by-pass. At 10,000 dwellings the development would be of such a size as to support many of its own jobs, shops, schools and other services, which would not be readily accessible from other parts of Harlow. The impression that a separate town would be created is strengthened by indications that it would be regarded as the first stage of a development up to 25,000 homes," ? This question relates to the findings of the Panel that held the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. Ropemaker Properties Limited has made known its views on the Panel's findings by letter and through this web site, as a matter of general interest. The Panel's findings are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comment on issues raised by the Panel at this time. Do you agree with the Panel report that says " The proposed strategy, in relying on "satellite" settlements rather than urban extensions integrated with the town, runs the risk that these will function as rival attractions in terms of the housing market and economic activity." ? This question relates to the findings of the Panel that held the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. Ropemaker Properties Limited has made known its views on the Panel's findings by letter and through this web site, as a matter of general interest. The Panel's findings are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comment on issues raised by the Panel at this time. Do you agree with the Panel Inspector that: "we would see a strategy concentrating on a number of directions for growth, while avoiding the distractions of planning for major "satellite" settlements as capable of producing early progress in development and securing gains for regeneration within the town."? This question relates to the findings of the Panel that held the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. Ropemaker Properties Limited has made known its views on the Panel's findings by letter and through this web site, as a matter of general interest. The Panel's findings are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comment on issues raised by the Panel at this time. Alan Moore, chief planner at EERA stated in response to public questioning at a Regional Assembly meeting, and on the record, that the Harlow Northern bypass was absolute necessary and a prerequisite to development north of Harlow. Were you unaware of this statement of EERA policy that informed the draft East of England Plan as you state the opposite in your response to the Panel report? (August 9th) No source is provided for this assertion. The planning policies that will guide development are set out in the draft East of England Plan. The draft plan contains no express or implied requirement that a Harlow Northern Bypass is a prerequisite of development of land to the north of Harlow. You say "Ropemaker Properties Ltd has made no specific proposals for the upgrading of the A414, whether an ?online' improvement or a bypass". Don't your Living Bridge proposals involve a radical upgrade to the A414 where it crosses the Stort? The Living Bridge proposals would not involve a radical upgrade to the A414 as you suggest. Any road proposals would look to use the existing causeway and bridges as far as practicable with bridge extensions or new footways where necessary. In your discussions with the faith based groups has the Harlow North Team suggested, either formally or informally, that land, or funding in any shape of form, would be made available at minimal cost for a faith school or community facilities for use by faith groups within the Harlow North scheme? We have been informed that it was but we would not wish for unfounded rumours to be further circulated in error. As part of the ongoing work of planning a sustainable urban extension to Harlow, the project team has given thought to ways in which the design of Harlow North could meet the needs of various groups within a mixed community: this has included the design of community spaces and facilities to meet the needs of a range of interest, including faith, groups. Ropemaker Properties Limited has not made (and is not at the appropriate stage in the design process to make) any commitments about the exact nature of these facilities or how they would be funded. These details would be the subject of negotiation with the Local Planning Authority at a later date. Bullet point 54 of Hertfordshire County Councils representations to the EiP on Matter 8H1 states: "54.The proposal for a Harlow northern bypass as set out in the Plan is therefore not acceptable to the County Council." Why did you state in a previous answer that "The proposals for a Harlow Northern Bypass were supported by Hertfordshire and Essex County Councils "? We confirm that in their representations to the draft East of England Plan, Hertfordshire County Council stated they supported a southern alignment for the Harlow bypass whereas Essex County Council favoured a northern route. The previous answer that both Essex and Hertfordshire County Councils were in support of a northern route was incorrect and has been amended. Which Highways Authorities do you believe are advancing a Harlow northern bypass at this time (June 2006)? Amended answer 13th July 2006: The proposals for a Harlow Northern Bypass were supported by Essex County Council through submissions to the draft East of England Plan. Ropemaker Properties Ltd is not aware of any subsequent change of position adopted by this authority to the scheme. We suggest that you contact them to determine what further work has been undertaken. Previous answer: The proposals for a Harlow Northern Bypass were supported by Hertfordshire and Essex County Councils through submissions to the draft East of England Plan. Ropemaker Properties Ltd is not aware of any subsequent change of position adopted by either authority to the scheme. We suggest that you contact the authorities to determine what further work has been undertaken. A far-reaching report by a cross-party group of MPs published today (June 20th) says the government policy of boosting affordability by simply flooding the market with new homes is a blunt tool unlikely to achieve its aims, and that policies for more homes need to be tailored to local needs. The report adds that ministers have failed to set out the full infrastructure costs for supplying the extra transport links, schools, health services and water supplies needed to cope with the likely increase in population, and the current funding earmarked for infrastructure to support the house-building programme is "insufficient". What is your reaction to this report? The report raises a number of important issues. Ropemaker Properties Limited agrees that new affordable and market housing should be tailored to meeting local needs: the plans for Harlow North are being designed with this in mind. It is envisaged that local Housing Needs Assessments would inform the character of the housing to be built within the scheme. The objective of the Government's Sustainable Communities Programme is precisely to achieve a proper balance of community and physical infrastructure with housing and jobs. The proposals for Harlow North will make provision for such infrastructure. You chose to answer a previous question about the disadvantages of the northern bypass rather narrowly in terms of route alignment. My question is much broader. In other answers you have shown a reticence to endorse a northern bypass preferring to route traffic through the existing town. In terms of spatial planning for the Greater Harlow area, and not relating to any specific alignement issues, what are the disadvantages of a northern bypass in principle, if any? The proposal for a Harlow Northern bypass is being promoted by the relevant highway authorities and is the responsibility of those bodies. As the question addresses an issue that relates to the whole of Harlow rather than the Harlow North proposals, we suggest that you contact the relevant highway and planning authorities in relation to the implications of their proposal upon existing Harlow. This response to your lack of sponsorship at this year's Harlow Buisness Awards "Ropemaker is awaiting the publication of the Panel Report on the draft East of England Plan. As has been explained to the organisers of the Awards, it would be inappropriate to sponsor the event in September if it is apparent by that time that the recommendations in the Report do not recognise the contribution that development north of the river Stort could make to local housing needs and the regeneration and growth of Harlow" is rather downbeat and might even suggest that in early June you have been given a "heads up" that the Panel might reject your proposals. Why so despondent? Where is your long term commitment to the businesses in the town? Ropemaker Properties Limited has no advance knowledge of the content of the Panel Report on the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. Ropemaker discussed sponsorship of the 2006 Harlow Business Awards with the organisers in October 2005 and it was agreed that further sponsorship would be reviewed after the Panel Report had been published. Ropemaker was pleased to support the Harlow Business Awards for two years and, if it does have an involvement in the growth of Harlow, it will consider such activities to support the local business community in the future. What was your rationale for sponsoring the 2004 and 2005 Harlow Business Awards? Ropemaker Properties Limited wished to promote its proposals for a sustainable urban extension north of Harlow, and the Awards gave an opportunity to engage with and support the local business community. If your housing building rates slow due to an econmic downturn how would that affect the regeneration of Harlow? Is the regeneration dependent on economic growth and house building rates rather than an independent objective to make Harlow better? All of the proposals within the draft East of England Plan, including the regeneration of Harlow will take place in the context of the general performance of the UK and regional economy. While the regional economy has performed well, and studies have identified further significant potential for growth in the future, it is inevitable that to the extent that particular proposals will rely on private investment, and to a lesser extent public investment, actual investment in the regeneration of Harlow will reflect prevailing economic circumstances. You stated "In the event that job growth was to be substantially below forecast levels this would probably be due to a downturn in the economy, and thus rates of house building would also be likely to fall". Are you saying if there was an economic downturn your proposals would not be needed? Would a more prudent regeneration strategy for Harlow therefore not be to build the 8,000 homes proposed to the east of the town within the existing boundaries and see if the expected jobs materialise? The suggested implication drawn from the previous answer is incorrect. The draft East of England Plan is intended to cover the period to 2021, during which period several economic cycles might be expected. While there may be peaks and troughs in housing and employment completions, subject to time lags, over a longer period housing growth is likely to reflect the general economic situation that prevails. Why do so many of your recent responses on this website say "If and when Ropemaker Properties Ltd was to prepare and submit a planning application..." Is there any doubt that you will go ahead? As we have previously stated, Ropemaker Properties Ltd has taken no decision as to if and when a planning application might be submitted. How does building an extra ten thousands houses north of Harlow "improve the prospects of Harlow capturing some of employment growth" in the East of England Plan? What happens if the jobs don't materialise? Background research undertaken for the draft East of England Plan points to the potential for substantial economic and employment growth the Stansted/M11 sub region for the period to 2021. The strategy of the draft Plan is to focus strategic scale growth in and around Harlow, in part to aid the regeneration of the town. At present Harlow has a limited range of employment uses and housing types, and underperforms in economic terms in comparison to neighbouring towns - the substantial proposed extensions to Harlow, including land north of Harlow, would provide opportunities to expand and diversify both the employment base of the town and the range of housing opportunities available to existing and incoming residents. The matter of securing a balance of employment and housing growth was considered at the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. The planning advisors to Ropemaker Properties Ltd note that the EiP Panel received a wide range of submissions on this matter. These ranged from those that sought a precise linkage between new job creation and housing and those who wanted a more flexible approach. Particular issues highlighted included the difficulty of establishing what jobs are being created and who they would serve, the time lags inherent in measuring economic activity and new house building rates, the adequacy of measures for control, and the view that readily available housing opportunities would itself encourage inward economic investment into the area. The views of the Panel on this subject are awaited. In the event that job growth was to be substantially below forecast levels this would probably be due to a downturn in the economy, and thus rates of house building would also be likely to fall. You rightly state the East of England Plan says employment in the sub region may be driven by "university level and research-based institutions; location of European Headquarters; regional offices; media and culture; biotechnology; pharmaceuticals; information technology; logistics .." Do you know of any significant commitments (greater than 1000 jobs) made by any such organasations to come to Harlow in the next few years? Aren't the high tech companies more likely to go to Cambridge at the other end of the "corridor"? Ropemaker Properties Ltd is not aware of any current single proposal that would create 1,000 jobs or more in the Stansted/M11 sub-region, with the exception of the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport. The proposals in the draft East of England Plan are based on the cumulative effect of the decisions of many institutions to expand and invest in the East of England region, including the Stansted/M11 sub-region. The proposals in the draft East of England Plan are intended to improve the prospects of Harlow capturing some of this employment growth. The Prince's Foundation today (May 4th 06) is advocating in a BBC website article that we should be "overcoming the mistakes of the past, such as the obstacle courses created by putting major roads through the middle of cities." Why do you advocate putting the A414 through the centre of your proposed Greater Harlow? The existing A414 already passes through Harlow Town. Responsibility for the existing county road network and any improvements thereof, rests with the relevant highway authorities, in this case Hertfordshire and Essex County Councils. Ropemaker Properties Ltd has made no specific proposals for the upgrading of the A414, whether an ?online' improvement or a bypass, as the form of any improvement will need to be determined by the Highway Authority. With regard to the northern bypass you state "it is unlikely to have significant direct frontage access and as such is unlikely to have any significant effect on Space Syntax modelling". Could explain this in the context of you drawing submitted to the EiP that showsa number of junctions ont this bypass? Will a bypass also draw a great deal of through traffic away from the centre of Harlow undermining the regeneration effects. Space Syntax models the effect of movement on the potential for movement-related human activity in the form of the potential for beneficial social and economic interaction. The final relationship of the existing A414 road to any new development area would be the subject of discussions with the planning and highway authorities. Given the present function of the route it has been assumed for the present that there would be a limited number of access points from any new development area to the A414, but no direct frontage access to the A414 frontage would be provided. For this reason there is unlikely to be any significant implications for Space Syntax modelling. The proposed Harlow Northern bypass is a proposal put forward by the relevant local authorities and is not a proposal of Ropemaker Properties Limited. It is not possible to determine the nature and extent of any effects on existing Harlow in Space Syntax terms until the detailed route has been determined. It will be for the statutory authorities to determine the balance of advantage and disadvantage of such a proposal. Your Space Syntax model does not show a bypass for Harlow which is part of the draft East of England Plan? Have you run the model with a bypass and what is the affect? In your meeting with English Partnership last June you state "All work shows importance of A414 through to town centre". Would a bypass undermine the regeneration of the current town? Why did you state this if you now hold no strong opinions either way on whether the northern bypass is necessary? Of what were you trying to convince English Partnerships? The quoted remark relates to the strategic importance of the area between the A414 and the existing town centre of Harlow in creating connectivity with Harlow North via the ?living bridge' as part of a unified ?Greater Harlow'. This reference identifies the importance of this area in regeneration terms, including the Harlow Gateway project, in which English Partnerships are involved. The form and routing of the Harlow northern bypass has yet to be established by the Highway Authorities. However, as currently proposed as a strategic route it is unlikely to have significant direct frontage access and as such is unlikely to have any significant effect on Space Syntax modelling. What do you see as the disadvantages of a Harlow northern bypass? The Harlow Northern bypass is a proposal being advanced by the relevant Highway Authorities, not Ropemaker Properties Ltd. To date the highway authorities have not published any specific proposals for the route and accordingly it is not possible to comment on the particular issues raised by the alignment. The operational assessement of the Strategic Highways Network conducted for the Highways Agency by Faber Maunsell in May 2005 states, even with a Harlow bypass, for the A414: Moderate to severe congestion is already occurring on the majority of the A414 in the morning peak period, and this is expected to become worse by 2016. Thus, severe congestion is predicted in the vicinity of Hemel Hempstead, with flows exceeding capacity south of St Albans, i.e. between the M10 and A1(M). Whilst flows between the A1(M) and A10 are forecast to remain considerably less than the capacity of the road, there is a small section of single carriageway through Hertford which is likely to become congested. East of the A10, flows are again expected to exceed capacity, notably near Ware and Harlow. Do you agree with this assessment? Are the roads around your proposed development likely to be very congested making them unattractive for employment growth? The draft East of England Plan contains a comprehensive set of proposals to improve the transport infrastructure in the general vicinity of Harlow. This includes rail capacity enhancements, a Harlow northern bypass, park and ride facilities, high quality public transport route, public transport access improvements, improvements to the A1184 and improvements to junctions 7 and 8 of the M11. These improvements are intended in part to address existing infrastructure issues as well as additional needs for movement arising from the anticipated general growth in traffic and from development associated with the redevelopment and growth of Harlow. Explanatory text further indicates that the details of transportation infrastructure improvements will be informed by further studies. The timing of the provision of these improvements will be the responsibility of the appropriate statutory body. The proposals for 'Greater Harlow' will need to be developed in conjunction with these infrastructure improvements in accordance with a programme established by the selected delivery vehicle(s). In November 2005 in your meeting with the Environmentb Agency it was minuted that Mr Tisdall had stated that Ropemaker were in the process of finalising a paper outlining the contribution Harlow North could make to the regeneration of Harlow. In Feb 2006 you said this paper would be published shortly. Why has it taken nearly six months to finalise this paper and no publication date can be confirmed? Is the case not as water tight as you might have people believe? We believe that the regeneration document prepared by the Ropemaker team sets out an extremely strong case for the contribution Harlow North will make to the regeneration of Harlow. This document has been completed and will be published at an appropriate time at Ropemaker's discretion. We believe publication before the outcome of the EiP is known would be premature. Has Ropemakers, or any of your partners in the Harlow North team, applied for any of the private sector Board members positions on the interim LDV Board for the regeneration of Harlow or do they have any intention of applying? It is considered this question is outwith the scope of the Q&A facility on the Website which is intended to address issues arising from the physical planning of the scheme. In Feb 2006 you siad Ropemaker Properties Limited will be publishing its own analysis and options for the regeneration of Harlow shortly. Can you provide and update? When do you expect to publish this analysis? This piece of work is still in progress, and we expect to publish it later in the year. At your meeting with English Partnerships last June you stated "All work shows importance of A414 through to town centre". We have asked you numerous times what your position is on a northern bypass and you have quoted back the positions of the county councils. Can you state clearly whether your work shows that the regeneration of Harlow would be undermined by building a northern bypass? Ropemaker Properties Ltd considers that it will be for those bodies responsible for progressing proposals related to the regeneration of Harlow, to come to a balanced view of the advantages and disadvantages of particular schemes relating to that initiative, whether they be development schemes or infrastructure schemes, including new strategic roads. Ropemaker Properties Ltd would make provision for a Harlow Northern bypass within the Harlow North scheme if the local authorities consider that this is necessary. Alternatively, or in addition, Ropemaker Properties may make contributions to other strategic transport infrastructure. Why does the layout for 10,000 homes in the Space Syntax report submitted to the EiP not match that in your new brochure? Which layout are you proposing? The Space Syntax report was intended to explore the spatial implications of different locations for growth on the spatial structure of Harlow Town. It is very likely similar conclusions on the effect on Harlow Town would have been reached had a different spatial structure for the growth locations been adopted. The masterplan shown in the latest prospectus, as in all previous cases, represents work in progress, and alternative approaches to accommodating the scale of development proposed on land to the north of Harlow will continue to be investigated. Why does the masterplan in your new prospectus not incorporate a northern bypass? You have proposed a route for one, and everyone (EERA, GO-East, Harlow Council, Essex County Council, etc) acknowledges this is a prerequisite for the development. Does this mean that the already heavy volume of traffic using the A414 will pass straight through the centre of Harlow North? The Harlow northern bypass is a proposal of the draft East of England Plan, and is a strategic scheme that will be progressed by the Highway Authority. While Essex County Council published some indicative routes for the bypass in their representations to the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan, these amount to no more than a republishing of work previously undertaken in the early 1990s. To our knowledge, neither Essex County Council, nor Hertfordshire County Council, have undertaken any detailed design work on the alignment of the Harlow northern bypass in the context of the draft East of England Plan proposals for development on land north of Harlow. If the principle of the Harlow northern bypass is accepted in the East of England Plan we would expect the Highway Authority to bring forward detailed proposals in due course. Ropemaker Properties Limited has made it clear that such a route would be accommodated within the proposals for Harlow North. There has been a breach of protocol with the release of the draft Harlow Regeneration report to yourselves ahead of its formal publication date. Requests by us for this draft document under the Fredom of Information Act were denied by Harlow Council. It is a matter of public interest who released or showed the document to yourselves. A responsible corporate citizens are you prepared to be more specific? It is not our practice to disclose information that we have assured participants of the Sustainability Symposia would remain confidential. This includes the identity of the delegates, since the event was held under the Chatham House Rule. Your revised masterplan has no mention of a bypass. Does this mean that the already heavy volume of traffic using the A414 will pass stright through the centre of Harlow North? The Harlow northern bypass is a proposal of the draft East of England Plan, and is a strategic scheme that will be progressed by the Highway Authority. While Essex County Council published some indicative routes for the bypass in their representations to the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan, these amount to no more than a republishing of work previously undertaken in the early 1990s. To our knowledge, neither Essex County Council, nor Hertfordshire County Council, have undertaken any detailed design work on the alignment of the Harlow northern bypass in the context of the draft East of England Plan proposals for development on land north of Harlow. If the principle of the Harlow northern bypass is accepted in the East of England Plan we would expect the Highway Authority to bring forward detailed proposals in due course. Ropemaker Properties Limited has made it clear that such a route would be accommodated within the proposals for Harlow North. Can you list the major infrastructure schemes (capital projects not ongoing maintenance and repairs funded by local authorities) that have been announced, and for which the finances are in place, that are designed to ease traffic congestion in Harlow? You refer to these in a previous answer but we are no aware of any. You state "Major investment in infrastructure is planned" but cannot tell me what schemes have been approved. This would imply that there is no likely improvement in the existing traffic situation around for at least a decade. Can you clarify how Harlow North would function if building proceeds ahead of major infrastructure schemes to resolve existing traffic problems e.g peak hour congestion at the Eastwick roundabout? We are not aware of having referred to specific existing infrastructure projects of this nature in a previous answer. Ropemaker Properties Limited anticipates that infrastructure of a strategic nature will be provided by the relevant statutory body with appropriate funding from both public and private sources. If the regeneration and growth proposals for ?Greater Harlow' are confirmed, it is envisaged that the planning and delivery of such strategic infrastructure will be the responsibility of a ?Greater Harlow Delivery Vehicle'. Site-related infrastructure would be provided by the developer in the normal way, commensurate with the development programme and subject to undertakings provided through a legal agreement that would form part of any planning permission. At a meeting between English Partnerships & representatives of Ropemaker Properties Limited 23 June 2005 you ask about the Harlow Gateway scheme "English Partnerships programme: can it accommodate a deferral? ". Why did you want to defer the Harlow Gateway Scheme at that time? At the same meeting, you ask the question " Progressing important discussions in absence of LA involvement? " I presume LA means local authority. Why did you want to progress without involving the local authorities? How does this fit with your open and transparent engagement with the community? Ropemaker Properties Limited regards the Gateway site as being of strategic importance to Harlow's regeneration, given its location between the town centre, the northern approach to the town and the railway station. The site would be of even greater significance in terms of establishing urban linkage if development to the north of the Stort was approved. When Ropemaker obtained a copy of the tender documents pack produced by the consortium of English Partnerships (EP), Harlow District Council (the Council) and Harlow and District Sports Trust, it was concerned that the Development Brief did not appear to recognise the site's full potential. Ropemaker had been endeavouring to engage the Council in a discussion about objectives and priorities for the regeneration of Harlow, but was given to understand that the officers of the Council had been instructed not to meet with Ropemaker or other developers prior to the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. The question was posed to determine whether English Partnerships could, in these particular circumstances, see a way of facilitating engagement with the Council. Similarly, the question regarding deferral of EP's programme was to determine what opportunity might exist to re-examine the Development Brief. In the event, Ropemaker funded a masterplanning exercise to facilitate submission through the tender process of an alternative bid by Places for People Group for an alternative form of development which would have created a significantly greater number of residential units. This bid was unsuccessful. Skelmersdale has suffered high unemployment, a lack of private investment, low land values, and chronically low self-esteem. Its regeneration is focused on rebuilding the existing town centre not growth. Why would this approach not work in Harlow? We are not alone in believing that growth will benefit the regeneration of Harlow. Harlow's own Regeneration Strategy comes down firmly in favour of the growth of Harlow as part of the comprehensive approach needed to create step change and move the town forward. PACEC's recommendations to Harlow District Council state that the growth of Harlow "provides a unique opportunity to satisfy the pre-conditions for regeneration." The Harlow Regeneration Strategy favours a dynamic growth scenario "to create the critical mass to enact change, deliver flagship projects, and fundamentally change the town through high and rapid growth that attracts necessary and immediate investment." Updated 24.2.06: We have set out at some length in our submissions to the EiP how we consider major urban expansion schemes at Harlow, including land north of Harlow, have the potential and are essential to assist regeneration of Harlow Town. These views are broadly shared by EERA, EEDA, Essex County Council and Harlow District Council. We have nothing further to add at present although Ropemaker Properties Limited will be publishing its own analysis and options for the regeneration of Harlow shortly. A copy of this document will be sent to Stop Harlow North and other stakeholders. Why does the masterplan in your new prospectus not incorporate a northern bypass? You have proposed a route for one, and everyone (EERA, GO-East, Harlow Council, Essex County Council, etc) acknowledges this is a prerequisite for the development. The Harlow northern bypass is a proposal of the draft East of England Plan, and is a strategic scheme that will be progressed by the Highway Authority. While Essex County Council published some indicative routes for the bypass in their representations to the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan, these amount to no more than a republishing of work previously undertaken in the early 1990s. To our knowledge, neither Essex County Council, nor Hertfordshire County Council, have undertaken any detailed design work on the alignment of the Harlow northern bypass in the context of the draft East of England Plan proposals for development on land north of Harlow. If the principle of the Harlow northern bypass is accepted in the East of England Plan we would expect the Highway Authority to bring forward detailed proposals in due course. Ropemaker Properties Limited has made it clear that such a route would be accommodated within the proposals for Harlow North. In your submission to matter 8H1 for the EiP your proposed northern bypass seems to take traffic around your proposed development and put it onto the B1184 at Sawbridgeworth. Do you acknowledge that this will only make Harlow's and Sawbridgeworth's traffic problems worse unless a new link to the M11 is built with a new junction? Are the link to the M11 and new junction therefore prerequistes for your proposed development? How will the northern bypass facilitate better access to the Pinnacles employment site in Harlow? The proposal for a northern Harlow bypass, and link to the M11, is a proposal in the draft East of England Plan. Essex County Council published a consultation document on alternative routes for the road in the early/mid 1990's and these alignments were submitted as a library document at the EiP. It is understood that the purpose of this road is to improve cross-county through traffic conditions. Ropemaker Properties Limited has submitted sketch proposals for an alternative alignment for that part of the route to the north of Harlow that takes account of the current proposals for Harlow. It has no formal standing. It will be for the responsible highway authorities to determine the nature of future highway improvements in the area and what linkages should be provided to existing development areas. At a meeting between English Partnerships & representatives of Ropemaker Properties Limited you presented a drawing showing a scheme for the living bridge. I obtained this under the Freedom of Information Act. This scheme had a floating cinema, floating stage, floating birds hides etc. Your latest brochure shows a much more conservative scheme. Have you significantly amended your scheme for the living bridge and its surroundings since this drawing was produced and if so why? At that meeting, Ropemaker emphasised that the drawing had only recently been produced by a working party of the project team and included some concepts that would need further evaluation by the full team. The drawings presented at presentations given by Ropemaker Properties Limited and the project team are often works in progress, and are presented as such. The prospectus shows an artist's impression of the ?living bridge' which is an indicative illustration in itself. It is inevitable that revisions will take place to drawings and schemes as work on our proposals progresses. At a meeting between English Partnerships & representatives of Ropemaker Properties Limited 23 June 2005 you ask the question " Progressing important discussions in absence of LA involvement? " I presume LA means local authority. Why did you want to progress without involving the local authorities? How does this fit with your open and transparent engagement with the community? Ropemaker Properties Limited regards the Gateway site as being of strategic importance to Harlow's regeneration, given its location between the town centre, the northern approach to the town and the railway station. The site would be of even greater significance in terms of establishing urban linkage if development to the north of the Stort was approved. When Ropemaker obtained a copy of the tender documents pack produced by the consortium of English Partnerships (EP), Harlow District Council (the Council) and Harlow and District Sports Trust, it was concerned that the Development Brief did not appear to recognise the site's full potential. Ropemaker had been endeavouring to engage the Council in a discussion about objectives and priorities for the regeneration of Harlow, but was given to understand that the officers of the Council had been instructed not to meet with Ropemaker or other developers prior to the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. The question was posed to determine whether English Partnerships could, in these particular circumstances, see a way of facilitating engagement with the Council. Similarly, the question regarding deferral of EP's programme was to determine what opportunity might exist to re-examine the Development Brief. In the event, Ropemaker funded a masterplanning exercise to facilitate submission through the tender process of an alternative bid by Places for People Group for an alternative form of development which would have created a significantly greater number of residential units. This bid was unsuccessful. At a meeting between English Partnerships & representatives of Ropemaker Properties Limited 23 June 2005 you quote directly from Harlow Draft Regeneration Strategy, February 2005. How did you happen to have a copy of this draft of the Strategy? Who gave it to you? This document came to our attention at the Harlow North Sustainability Symposia. What is the Enviornment Agency's position on your proposal for a "living bridge"? Do they support or object to it? At present the EA does not feel able to support the ?living bridge' proposal. Both the EA and the Harlow North project team have agreed that we should continue to work together to develop a proposal that will be an exemplary sustainable development. Your housing requirements "analysis is based on the central assumption of an expansion of the Harlow workforce of some 17,000 full time employees,". What would be the consequence if less than half these jobs were created in "greater harlow"? How quickly do you see the decline in jobs in Harlow turning around to achieve the growth you have assumed bearing in mind Merck's recent announcement concerning Terling's Park and similar jobs losses in Harlow? Planning for a sustainable community entails providing space for sufficient jobs locally for the local workforce. The figures our consultants SQW have used have been determined by careful assumptions related to characteristics of the future likely population. We are, however, realistic about our assumptions. Any new community will, almost certainly, take some time to adjust. We anticipate that ? with careful planning ? the extended town will proceed over a long-term period of change towards greater ?self-sufficiency' and subsequent fall in the need for commuting. Related to the point on the decline in jobs in Harlow, according to the most recent seven years of available data, Harlow has seen job numbers fluctuate between 34,969 (1999) and 40,012 (2002) (Annual Business Inquiry, 1998-2004). We are confident about Harlow's potential as a location for employment growth, in line with its key role in regional planning policy and strategy. There are several reasons for this, including the expected growth of Stansted and opportunities for Harlow to capture spin-off employment growth from Cambridge and London. The long term opportunities that will result from the staging of the London Olympics are likely to provide an additional spur to future employment growth. We anticipate that up to one third of the anticipated employment is directly related to the incoming population through the provision of personal services and other household activities. SQW's research has shown that there is potential for strong employment growth in the Stansted/M11 sub-region (which includes Harlow as the major settlement). In addition, new housing development and subsequent growth in population will ? in itself ? generate, both directly and indirectly, substantial employment, mainly in local services (research undertaken by Savills indicates that demand generated by 10,000 new households would create around 4,000 jobs in the local area). In your submission to the EiP you state " The Harlow Growth Options Study identified that focussing large-scale development to the north of Harlow would be likely to support development within the town centre". Didn't the Harlow 2020 partnership conclude that "This option would not help with the regeneration of Harlow"? http://www.harlow2020.org.uk/harlow%20option%20study.pdf The quoted line "This option would not help with the regeneration of Harlow" from the summary of the Options Study refers to Option 4, as outlined thus: "4. Satellite development - would involve new settlements outside Harlow including land to the north of the town (the Ropemaker site), at North Weald Bassett, and on a lesser scale at Hoddesdon, Ware, Cheshunt and Epping. If there were higher levels of growth there would also be a new satellite at Waltham Abbey." The proposals in the draft East of England Plan regarding land north of Harlow, and our own proposals, are not for a new settlement outside of Harlow, but for a sustainable urban extension located on land immediately to the north of Harlow. We believe that our proposals properly fall for consideration under Option 1, identified by the Study as more favourable: "1.Sub Regional Urban Focus - would build up Harlow's position as a major town in the west-Essex and East Herts area, and develop it to be a main focal point. So most new homes would be focused in and around the town. Some new homes would be built on greenfield sites around the edge of the town. "This option would help with the regeneration of Harlow and provide a range of different kinds of housing in the town." You state in you submision to the EiP that "In the absence of substantial public funds this rejuvenation will need to be progressed on the back of private sector investment in the area". Does this mean if public funds were available for regeneration of Harlow your proposals would not be needed? No. The proposals in the draft East of England Plan are predicated on the premise that private investment in the form of urban extensions and other development will be needed to address the full range of needs for the regeneration of Harlow. For example, some improvements to the town necessarily require a larger population base in order to be viable, e.g. creation of a sub-regional or regional shopping offer in Harlow. Calls have been made for Essex County Council to draw up an action plan to address the shortage of elderly care beds in Harlow. What provision have you made in your masterplan for care of the elderly ? Ropemaker Properties Limited has already identified a need to make provision for housing for all groups within the scheme. Specific provision for the elderly, including sheltered and other forms of accommodation with an element of care, will be the subject of discussions with the housing authorities and others at the appropriate time. In a recent answer you state " it is vitally important that both Harlow Council and other stakeholders in the town support proposals for growth". You also state " East Hertfordshire District Council and Hertfordshire County Council are both important stakeholders" but imply by omission that their lack of support is not important. Is that correct? Are East Hertfordshire District Council and Hertfordshire County Council's objections irrelevant and if so why? We have never "implied by omission" that any position taken by East Hertfordshire District Council or Hertfordshire County Council is "not important" or "irrelevant". On 11th January 2006 you answered the question "Have Savills Research department ever quoted for or conducted a Market Demand Study for Harlow North?" with a straight "No". I have in my posession a document entitled "Market Demand Study for Harlow North " authored by the Head of Research Savills, dated 22 Feb 2005, quoting ?53,000 plus VAT and expenses for the work described within it. Would you like to reconsider your original answer? We apologise for if the answer given was misleading. It was assumed that the earlier question related to work that a party other than Ropemaker Properties Limited may have sought to commission, as the output from Savills' work for Ropemaker is already in the public domain in the Examination in Public library, PRT56, which deals with housing requirements at Greater Harlow. Previous question: Have Savills Research department ever quoted for or conducted a Market Demand Study for Harlow North? If so what was the outcome? Previous answer: No. Do you believe : (a) the proposed A414 to M11 link to the north of Harlow is a general strategic requirement which is independent of any particular growth location around Harlow or (b) the proposed A414 to M11 link to the north of Harlow is necessitated by the Harlow North growth location or (c)Harlow North growth location cannot proceed until the strategic improvement of the proposed A414 to M11 link to the north of Harlow is delivered? The concept of a Harlow bypass predates any proposals for the expansion of Harlow and has more recently been taken up by EERA. A number of possible alignments for the bypass were published in the mid-1990s, but these were not proceeded with. We understand both Essex County Council and Hertfordshire County Council are keen to see the A414 extended to the M11 as part of the improvement of cross county strategic routes, and improvement would be principally aimed at improving the route for 'through traffic' so it could avoid the built-up area of Harlow. What discussion have you had with English Partnerships about your proposals? Ropemaker has given English Partnerships, who have landholdings in the Stort Valley, presentations of its proposals at EP's Milton Keynes office. These were general briefings regarding the emerging proposals for a possible large scale urban extension. We have been keeping English Partnerships informed of the progress of the project at their request. In your FAQs you state " Major investment in infrastructure is planned for the whole town, particularly a public transport system that would reduce congestion and enable efficient movement throughout." Can you describe what infrastructure schemes are currently funded in this regard? Ropemaker Properties Limited does not currently fund any infrastructure schemes in Harlow. We assume that infrastructure that currently exists in the town, such as transport infrastructure, is funded via the relevant statutory body; however RPL is not privy to the details of such funding arrangements. In your submission to the EiP you state "In our view the prospect of a ?conditional' approach to controlling development in conjunction with the provision of infrastructure at a local level is tantamount to a ?NIMBY' charter". What infrastructure do you see as prerequisites for the development north of Harlow, if any? Any large new development on the scale of Harlow North requires substantial infrastructure provision across a wide range of areas. However, a number of elements, particularly the Sustainable Drainage System, are proposed to be delivered on a neighbourhood scale so that, to a large extent, parts of the infrastructure can be rolled out simultaneously with rather than in advance of development. In your submission to the EiP you state " it is fanciful to believe that a complete balance of jobs and economically active could be secured within a particular area". Aren't the proposalsfor Harlow North based exact on this premise that jobs and housing will be in balance in a mixed use community? Harlow North is intended to create the right conditions for an eventual high level of employment within its confines, which realistically may take some time to achieve. It would in any event be extremely optimistic to anticipate an exact balance of jobs and economically active residents being achieved and maintained in a dynamic economy. Over the long term, there will inevitably be periods when the balance shifts one way or the other, but the nature of the sustainable community should minimise the extent of any such shifts. Beyond Green's webs ite sya they are working on "affordability and regeneration strategy". Can you explain this strategy in more detail? In response to the Harlow Regeneration Strategy and other papers that have been published on the issue of regeneration, Beyond Green is currently working on issues of affordability and regeneration, but this is still work in progress. The recently announced Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) winning bids included nothing for the Harlow area. Are you concerned that the Government is not funding the infrastructure or new approaches required to support growth around Harlow? The funding of infrastructure is and will be derived from many sources, both private and public. It is envisaged that private developers will provide social, community and physical infrastructure as part of planning schemes, through well-established planning obligations procedures and any subsequent changes to those procedures currently being considered by Government. Ropemaker Properties Limited considers that it is important that central and local Government play its full part in facilitating necessary strategic infrastructure to support the regeneration and proposals for new development in Greater Harlow. New houses are zero-rated but regeneration schemes face the full 17.5% VAT charge. Is there as case for "harmonising" the rates to relieve pressure on greenfield sites? There is a case for considering whether the charging of VAT on regeneration schemes is a disincentive. It should also be borne in mind that greenfield sites, as in the case of Harlow North, may contribute to regeneration. How do you react to the Highways Agency submission to the draft East of England Plan that states "we are of the opinion that a Harlow Northern Bypass, connecting to the M11 by a new junction between junctions 7 and 8, will result in severe congestion on the section of the motorway between the new junction and junction 8, due to additional traffic from the proposed development north of Harlow"? One of the Governments executive Agencies - the Highways Agency - may consider that certain elements of new infrastructure are necessary to support development proposals in the draft East of England Plan. Where this is the case then Government will need to put in place the necessary funding mechanisms. Ropemaker Properties Limited considers that traffic increases referred to on the M11 as a result of a possible new junction between Junctions 7 and 8 would be primarily a result of providing a new link between A414 and M11, which in itself will increase flows on the M11 between the new junction and Junction 8 irrespective of development at North Harlow. Only a small proportion of the increased flow on the M11 will be as a result of traffic from the Harlow North development itself. Furthermore RPL do not consider the M11 link or the Harlow Northern Bypass is essential to allow development at North Harlow to proceed, although RPL can accommodate such a link should the local highways authorities, Hertfordshire County Council and Essex County Council wish to promote the scheme. What is your reaction to the Urban Task Force's withering report, Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance? Tony Burton, the director of policy at the National Trust, said the Government needed to avoid focusing on its four growth areas in the South - the M11 corridor, Milton Keynes, the Thames corridor and Ashford - and concentrate instead on the renewal of towns and cities. The panel said that transport was at the heart of regeneration. Yet Government decisions on paying for urban transport were taken piecemeal, in apparent isolation from their impact and with no evaluation of the broader benefits that such investments would bring about. (Note M11 widening cancellation). John Prescott's "urban renaissance" was condemned yesterday by the Urban Task Force he set up as "clumsy, insensitive, rushed, quantity-driven and wasteful". We welcome the debate, and would agree with the importance of the renewal of towns and cities, although we do not believe that this is incompatible with growth in the areas cited. The regeneration of Harlow is a key principle of our proposals for Harlow North. As far as transport is concerned, Harlow North has been designed around an efficient, high-quality transport and movement network, to enable movement around the town that is not wholly dependent on the car. We acknowledge that transport is a key issue, and one regarding which we will have to work with other agencies. What is your reaction to the Government's cancellation of the widening of the M11 from junctions 8-14? As the motorway is the spine of the London Stansted Cambridge Peterborough Growth Area would you not agree that capacity on the M11 must be a key prerequisite for growth? The wording of the Statement from the Department of Transport dated 14 November 2005 is that: "Further detailed traffic modelling and appraisal work carried out for the Highways Agency now suggests that widening of this section of the M11 is not justified within the time period indicated by the [London to South Midlands] Multi-Modal Study. Even after allowing for increased traffic from the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport to 56 million passengers per annum and the proposed expansion of housing in the London - Stansted - Cambridge - Peterborough growth areas, as outlined in the draft East of England Plan, the Agency's traffic modelling suggests that this section of the M11 should have the capacity to cater for growth in traffic until 2021." The Department for Transport further states that: "Following the London to South Midland Multi-Modal Study in July 2003, Ministers also asked the Highways Agency to carry out further work to determine when the M11 between junctions 9-14 would require widening to dual-3 lanes. It was envisaged that such a scheme, if taken forward, might be implemented by around the middle of the next decade, subject to completion of all necessary planning and statutory procedures. The Agency is continuing with this work and no timetable has yet been determined for when such a scheme might need to be implemented." The Government therefore considers that the M11 from Junction 8 to Junction 14 is adequate to support growth in the Sub-region in the period to 2021. Can you describe how the predicted traffic flows over your proposed "Living Bridge " compare to the example of Pultney Bridge in Bath that you quote? Or the Ponte Vecchio in Florence - is this a pedestrain only bridge? The bridges in question were cited to illustrate the point that the concept of having useful and habitable built form crossing water and/or floodplains has a distinguished history ? these examples were not intended to be comparable to the proposed ?living bridge' in terms of traffic flow. As with any street on ?dry land', if traffic is to move across the bridge, it will be designed accordingly. In one answer you argue that the costs of a potential bypass are highly speculative because potential routes have not been chosen but in another answer argue that a northern bypass has cost advantages over a southern one. Surely as you argue earlier it depends on route choice, purpose, acceptability by Higways Agency of a new junction on M11 etc...Please clarify. The cost of a specific proposal cannot be determined until the route has been selected, but a strategic overview of options undertaken on behalf of the Essex County Council by MVA consultants dated May 2005 indicates that a southern bypass would be the more expensive. In this work, a considerable range of comparative costs for a northern or southern bypass is quoted in what are provisional estimates (based on a broad indicative alignment and cost inputs): ?138 million to ?199 million for a northern bypass, and ?179 million to ?258 million for a southern bypass. Isn't a new junction on the M11, north of junction 7, opposed by the Highways agency? In initial discussions with RPL, the Highways Agency has indicated that they have concerns about the building of a new junction on the M11 which would link to the A414. We anticipate that they, along with other relevant agencies and stakeholders, will be part of future discussions to resolve the issue of whether such a link should be constructed. Are you disappointed that the recently-released Harlow Regeneration Strategy, commissioned by Harlow Council, makes no reference at all to development north of Harlow, and then only contemplates major expansion in a 10-15 year timeframe? Ropemaker Properties Limited fully supports the conclusions presented within the Harlow Regeneration Strategy, which states that "growth will be critical to delivering the level of regeneration needed in Harlow." While it is not within the remit of the strategy to specify the location of any such development, the analysis concludes that a high level of growth (in the region of 20,000 additional dwellings) would provide the greatest potential for regeneration, particularly through the generation of more diverse employment opportunities, a more dynamic ecomomic base, the enabling of a "turn around" in Harlow's image and resulting increased investment in local infrastructure. The report suggests that regeneration in Harlow will happen in phases, with an initial planning phase (0-5 years) followed by a investment phase (5-10 years), including the delivery of housing and employment projects to achieve "critical mass", and finally the bringing together of growth and regeneration initiatives, including through further expansion, to realise significant benefits to Harlow (10-15 years). RPL endorses the belief that any such coordinated, well planned growth and regeneration of Harlow will require a long-term approach and accepts that planning over timescales of up to 10-15 years or more is entirely appropriate. Wouldn't a southern bypass around Harlow to the existing junction 7 be a more cost effective way of solving Harlow's traffic problems and give access to the Pinnacles employment areas to west of Harlow? Any solution to Harlow's traffic problems must maximise use of public transport, both for travel to and from existing development and for future development. There is also a need to minimise the need to travel by ensuring that future development is located where it can be fully integrated with the existing built-up area, thus reducing the need to travel by car and maximising the opportunities for travel by foot, cycle and public transport. The transport strategy for the Harlow/Stansted area in the draft East of England Plan identifies a need for an A414 to M11 Link. Work done on such a link on behalf of Essex County Council, Harlow Council and others indicates to Ropemaker's advisors that if such a link is necessary there would be advantages to it running north of Harlow to a new junction on the M11. This form of link could also provide improved access to strategic growth areas. The work further indicates that the northern route has a number of advantages over a route running west and south of Harlow to junction 7 of M11. These advantages include cost and reduced environmental impact. Can you explain what you mean by " 3.3.19 Density makes the urban amenity happen" ? "Density makes the urban amenity happen" refers to the fact that a relatively high-density development creates a critical mass of people which makes it possible to accommodate a wide range of amenities within a local area. For example, a range of shops, services, access to public transport and open space may be located within a five minute walk of every home, as is the case with plans for Harlow North. Lower-density developments do not generate a sufficient population to support the same level of amenity within a local area; residents would thus have to travel further, often by car, to access services. One of the benefits you quote for your proposals is enhance retail opportunities in greater Harlow. However, making Harlow into a sub regional shopping centre has received a thumbs down by residents. The consultation by Harlow Council on the draft East of England Plan shows residents are satisfied with the number of facilities already available and the offer of more shopping is the lowest priority for them (Figs 16 &17 in consultation report). Why do you think residents remain unconvinced by the supposed benefits of more retail opportunities? Table 6 in Harlow Council's consultation report (http://www.harlow.gov.uk/Default.aspx?sID=45&cID=132&ctID=43) indicates support for an "improving range of shops in town centre" (65%) and "Harlow to develop into sub regional centre" (69%). Could you explain why you believe the proposal for a 'Harlow outer northern bypass' is pejorative as per your submission to the public consultation on the draft East of England Plan? As outlined in our representation, while we acknowledge and support the need to improve east-west accessibility through Harlow, in our view it is premature to indicate the form that such improvements might take until a proper assessment of all the alternative means of increasing accessibility have been evaluated. We consider that such improvements should not be regarded as a ?strategic' road link purely to serve the needs of through traffic. Rather the improvements should relate more directly to the need to increase the accessibility of Harlow to the strategic road network, in part to contribute to and underpin the regeneration initiatives promoted by other policies in the draft East of England Plan. Why do you object to the requirement for a Park and Ride facility at Harlow Town station to provide high quality public transport to Harlow Town centre and to Stansted Airport. (as per the summary of your response to the public consultation on the draft East of Engalnd plan publised by the EiP Panel)? We strongly support improvements to public transport in the region, however we do not believe that a Park and Ride facility at Harlow Town Station would be the best way to deliver such improvements. As outlined in our submission, we do not believe that the service into Harlow Town centre would be well used as motorists driving into Harlow would be unlikely to transfer mode (from car to bus) for such a short distance (1km). There is also very little traffic bound for Stansted Airport which passes close to Harlow Town Station which could be intercepted by a Park and Ride facility transferring people onto buses. We believe it would be more effective if residents of Harlow themselves traveling to Stansted or other areas in the region were encouraged to access rail services at Harlow Town Station by non-car modes or to make use of the improved public transport link proposed elsewhere in this policy. We believe that instead of a Park and Ride facility, a new multi-modal interchange would be more appropriate, improving the linkage between a range of services from local bus to train, cycle and coach. This would also complement other proposals for improving public transport in the area, for example through station improvements and the provision of other public transport services to stations. Why do you believe the lead role for promoting and implementing the 'co-ordinated development strategy' should be given to an Urban Development Corporation (as per summary of your response to the public consultation on the draft East of England Plan published by the EiP panel)? There is a need for a coordinated approach to regeneration and development in and around Harlow, including through securing economic growth, increased investment in housing, improved physical and community infrastructure and retail/recreational facilities over many years. Funding and delivery of such a programme will involve a range of organisations within a number of local authority areas. It is therefore vital that the most appropriate organisational mechanism is established to drive forward the proposals for Greater Harlow. Ropemaker considers an Urban Development Corporation to be a possible mechanism for achieving these aims as it could have local representation to ensure local priorities were addressed while providing a focused vehicle with a lifespan of 20 years or so to enable it to take a sufficiently long-term view of the issues. However, other possible delivery mechanisms that achieve these aims can also be considered. Why do you believe the requirement for Local Development Documents to allocate "two strategic employment sites" and "additional large sites" in policy ST2 of the draft East of England Plan is too prescriptive As explained in our response to the draft East of England Plan, in our view new development allocations should avoid reliance on large scale, single use sites, in favour of creating more mixed use schemes where employment areas are integrated into the urban development. While some activities will not be compatible with close association with residential environments, there will be many forms of employment, including light industrial, office, service/facilities activities together with small and large scale retail, that can be appropriately located in mixed use areas or mixed use buildings. Such an approach would have the effect of potentially reducing the need to travel to work, produce more vibrant urban areas and avoid parts of the urban area being devoid of activity for significant periods of the day/week. This approach is also in line with emerging Government planning advice on best practice for new employment allocations. Why does your representation to the public consultation on the draft East of England plan object to the improvements to the A414 being described as a strategic route? As outlined in our representation, while we acknowledge and support the need to improve east-west accessibility through Harlow, in our view it is premature to indicate the form that such improvements might take until a proper assessment of all the alternative means of increasing accessibility have been evaluated. We consider that such improvements should not be regarded as a ?strategic' road link purely to serve the needs of through traffic. Rather the improvements should relate more directly to the need to increase the accessibility of Harlow to the strategic road network, in part to contribute to and underpin the regeneration initiatives promoted by other policies in the draft East of England Plan. The recent Harlow regeneration study published by Harlow Council indicates developer contribution of ?200-300 million will be required in a total of ?800million approx. for the necessary infrastructure to regenerate Harlow. Are you prepared to commit to this level of funding? The landowners / developers will reach a series of detailed agreements with statutory and other authorities regarding the provision of new and improved infrastructure and the most appropriate way of financing this. RPL expect to make significant contributions to these costs. Section 4.1.18 of the draft East of England Plan response- New services for local people - indicates that Harlow North might benefit existing residents by: a) attracting a John Lewis store, b) increasing the range of leisure facilities c) attracting a major sports team. Is increased shopping and entertainment the "brave new world" for Harlow residents? In the Intergrated Regional Strategy , written jointly by SQW your economic advisors and another consultant for the East of England Assembly section 3.10 states"?..The imperative must be for economic activity of a form that will maintain long term competitiveness; partners in the East of England will want to avoid the phenomenon observed in several major new towns of rapid growth in low skilled/ low paid jobs (many relating to retail and leisure) that lure young people out of further and higher education and thus constitute something of an employment "time bomb." How do you reconcile this with the emphasis on Harlow becoming a sub regional shopping centre and the large munber of retail jobs envisaged? The advantages you quote for Harlow residents include a greater range of shopping, leisure and entertainment facilities and a major sports team. By you own advisors words isn't this unsustainable in the long term? Ropemaker Properties Limited seeks to achieve a wide range of industrial, office, service and other activities within the scheme for the land to the north of Harlow that is complimentary to and will assist the regeneration of Harlow. This approach will take account of the strategy contained in the draft East of England Plan to promote Harlow Town Centre as a sub regional retail and service centre. New employment opportunities in retailing and leisure would only comprise one aspect of the wider employment 'offer' that Harlow could provide in the future. Can you explain how Harlow North and Harlow will become fully integrated when your plans mean that gentrification, not regeneration will occur? Please explain how a radically different socio-economic group will merge as one settlement organically? I find this highly unlikely. This is a new settlement, encroaching on Green Belt land however you manipulate language or government legislation to suit your own development needs. We will shortly publish a discussion paper on integration with Harlow and regeneration issues, which will address this issue directly. Harlow North is about opportunity and choice, which in due course will enable social movement in a way which the current social geography of the area does not encourage. We will do all we can to ensure mixed communities ? this is a central tenet of our proposition. Rather than manipulating language or government legislation and policy, we are endeavouring to take government legislation and policy extremely seriously, and translate the concepts involved into the reality of vibrant, regenerated towns. There are few more serious and applied efforts to do this in the UK than Harlow North. In response to another question you say "The planning advisors to Ropemaker Properties Limited advise that the Panel will wish to consider the appropriateness of the proposed strategic policies; they will not wish to hear detailed evidence relating to site specific development proposals". Can you have confidence in advice when a specific matter that the EiP wish to consider is "Is the Plan right to promote growth of Harlow to become a sub-regional centre and will growth on the scale proposed assist or hinder regeneration within Harlow?" Our planning advisors have commented that the nature of the issue raised by the Panel, and quoted in the question, is exactly the nature of the strategic debate the Panel will be keen to foster at the Examination in Public. It is their experience that the Panel Chairman will intervene in the proceedings if participants seek to use the session to object to or promote a particular site proposal rather than a general allocation for development. John Prescott has announced that the Government is looking seriously at a Planning Gain Supplement - a tax on the difference in the value of land before and after planning consent is granted. This could seriously dent your proposals to contribute to the regeneration of Harlow through generous financial assistance to infrastructure schemes. What is you reaction to the potential Planning Gain Supplement tax proposals? We look forward to discussions regarding the most appropriate means of funding essential public infrastructure, following determination of the Regional Spatial Strategy. There are many different ways in which the public interest can be met, and of course government will decide by dint of national policy, as interpreted in specific regional and local circumstances. Winning the Olympic bid is fantastic news for the regeneration of the Lea valley. However, the Government's commitment to fund the necessary infrastructure to support the East of England Plan is already in doubt and building organisations are warning of a skills shortage. With the focus now on the Lea Valley is it time to scale back other growth plans, especially at Harlow, which will be competing for resources? There needs to be equivalent and equally good news for the regeneration of Harlow. We feel sure that government, with public and private sector partnerships, will find a way to ensure that this is the case. There is always competition for scarce public resources, which is why it is important in the case of Harlow that large scale private investment is achieved. Subject to the opportunity to review plans for the regeneration of the Lea Valley in detail, one imagines that the success enjoyed by London in bidding for the 2012 Olympics is good news for Harlow as well, and every opportunity should be taken to consolidate this. Section 2.7.6 in your response to the draft East of England Plan states: "the new urban extensions are likely to attract people of different socio-economic backgrounds" , section2.7.11 (iv) states " the overall quality of the development will appeal to professional and managerial classes" but 2.7.9 states " opportunities for people who currently live in Harlow new Town to move to new homes in neighbourhoods north of the Stort". Are you trying to attract a different "class" of resident or "decant" the existing population of Harlow? Your employment argument seem based on the former and your regeneration arguments based on the latter. Ropemaker Properties Limited does not consider these two sentences to be contradictory. Ropemaker seeks a high quality scheme that will provide an attractive urban environment that will appeal to many people. The scheme will provide the opportunity for people in the locality - Harlow, East Hertfordshire and Epping, for example - and beyond to gain access to housing opportunities that are currently not available. This is indeed an important principle in the Government's Sustainable Communities Programme. The draft East of England Plan is meant to be jobs led not housing led yet your response contains phrases such as "Major development at Harlow could contribute to employment growth " (4.1.8) and "the new urban extensions are likely to attract people" 2.7.6. Your proposals appear to housing led not employment led. Please comment Ropemaker Properties Limited seeks the creation of a balanced sustainable community, forming part of a Greater Harlow, that will comprise a wide range of housing types by size, character and tenure, and a wide variety of local employment opportunities, in part to diversify the local economy, all supported by appropriate physical, social and community infrastructure. Ropemaker considers such an approach to be entirely compatible with the Government's Sustainable Communities Programme. Your response to the draft East of England Plan makes specific reference to discussions with Harlow Council's Regeneration Unit in 2005. Can you detail when you have met with Harlow Council members and/or officers and for what purpose? Ropemaker has made several presentations to officers at Harlow District Council, the last being on 11th August 2004 with the Head of Planning Services, the Forward Planning and Regeneration Manager and the Head of Economic Regeneration. Ropemaker has never met Harlow Council members to discuss Harlow North. The reference in our response to the draft East of England Plan to discussions with Harlow Council's Regeneration Unit relates to a telephone conversation regarding the development of the Town Centre South and its impact in retail terms. In section 2.2.3 in your response to the draft East of England Plan you argue that there are compelling reasons to "complete the circle" north of the Stort. Completing the circle was rejected in the original design for Harlow as were your proposals to do so when put to SERPLAN in the late 90s. The landscape and environmental constraints have not changed. If the reasons were not compelling then why are they now? The proposals for the existing Harlow Master Plan were conceived more than 50 years ago, having regard to the development needs at that time. Circumstances have changed since then, not least the need for additional substantial new development within the East of England to meet the changing requirements of the population. Gibberd was a highly respected town planner and Harlow frequently visited until only recently by students of town planning as a model development. Section 2.21 of your response to the draft East of England plan states: " Harlow's designers had failed to understand how towns work". How many supporters and advocates of Harlow's current design and of Gibberd's ideas do you think you may have offended? We have no intention of offending anyone; rather we desire a serious debate about the regeneration and growth of Harlow. Many of Gibberd's principles were similar to or the same as those valued in the urbanism that is key to our proposals for the land north of Harlow. The report ?Harlow Area Study: Masterplanning Principles & Sustainability Criteria', prepared with Harlow District Council by Matrix Partnership et al, finds that many of Gibberd's original principles were not followed during the development of Harlow new town. For example, the report states: "The implementation therefore led to a town form different from that envisaged, which Gibberd makes clear reference to." It also has to be remembered that we live in very different times, with far more critical pressures than existed 50 or so years ago. Your response document to the East of England Plan discusses sales growth trends in the Pharmceutical industry and extrapolates this to a potential increase in jobs in R&D in Harlow. This shows a very poor understanding of the drivers of R&D investment and the likely beneficiaries of growth in R&D spend. Your argument seems speculative. Have you had any concrete discussion with the large pharmaceutical employers in Harlow to substantiate your hypothesis? We are making a more general point about the prospects for the Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology sectors, and the potential for Harlow attracting additional employment in these sectors, given the major presence of GlaxoSmithKline already in Harlow, publicly available information on both the sectors and the relevant firms, the pool of specialist skills in the area, and the wider sub-regional and regional context. Have any of the project team met with the ODPM, Go-East, EDA or any other government bodies since the reported (on this Q&A) meetings last July. If so when and for what purpose? There has been one such meeting since July 2004: on 22nd November 2004, a presentation of Ropemaker Properties Limited's proposals for Harlow North was made to the Head of Growth Areas and Housing Supply Division at ODPM. As would be the case with any major development, it will be appropriate for Ropemaker Properties Limited to participate in a dialogue with all relevant major organisations and departments, including those you refer to, in order to ensure that they are properly informed about our work and position. Harlow Council's response to the East of England pland states: "To ensure that growth north of Harlow contributes to the town's regeneration rather than detracting from it, it is Harlow's view that any such development should be included in the same local government administrative area as Harlow, and it will continue to press this point in the appropriate forums" What is your view on such boundary changes and leaving this development in the hands of what is or was officially a failing council. Would you argue against this form of control? The various local authorities within the East of England region have made a wide range of comments on many aspects of the draft East of England Plan including proposed strategic growth locations - it is inevitable that there will be differences in approach or priorities between local authorities. The Panel at the forthcoming Examination in Public of the East of England Plan (at which the local authorities will be represented) will have the task of considering the principal planning issues and recommending appropriate modifications to the Plan for consideration by the ODPM. We anticipate that the form of the delivery vehicle to progress the proposals for Greater Harlow may be discussed generally at the Examination in Public. It is likely the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will put forward proposals in respect of the implementation stage of any approved planning allocations in due course. Ropemaker Properties Limited is not aware of any proposal to change administrative boundaries; however, if the proposed allocation to the north of the Stort is approved, it would seem appropriate for there to be a high degree of co-operative working between East Hertfordshire and Harlow District Councils to ensure that the objectives of the finalised East of England Plan are met. Given that the new houses proposed for Hunsdon could EASILY lead to a 2850% (approx)increase in population (10,000 houses @ 3 people per house) and that the life style we choose by living there, why can't a simple referendum be held to see what we want? If the proposal is that good, we will vote for it,if not, we won't. Harlow must surley be regenerated from within, not without. Spend the ? millions now and get quicker results. A vote by those affected please. A very large number of people across the whole region and indeed the country are affected by these proposals, as a result of issues such as the growth of the economy, and the increased demand for housing which is particularly intense in this region. Of particular relevance to the region are the problems and issues which affect Harlow, and the opportunity for Harlow to benefit from a large-scale urban extension. Of course local stakeholders will be the most directly affected, and the planning system provides for the concerns and aspirations of these people to be heard. It is perhaps misleading to state that there are "? millions" available now. However if the proposals in the draft East of England Plan for the expansion of Harlow to the north are approved, Ropemaker Properties Limited would be concerned to ensure that regeneration and expansion proceed in tandem to mutual benefit. In the transport study of Harlow, recently published, a cost of up to ?200million is estimated for a northern bypass. How much of this cost do you think should be borne by the taxpayer? At present the 'Harlow Northern Bypass' is a proposal in the draft East of England Plan and subject to consideration through the planning process for the Plan. To date, we are not aware that any detailed design work has been undertaken on such a route. Accordingly, the cost estimate set out in the Harlow Transport Study is not based upon any approved road scheme and must be regarded as wholly speculative. In practice there are a number of ways in which existing and future traffic movement in the area might be accommodated, depending in large part on the location of planned development and other regeneration opportunities at Harlow. Doubtless there will be an expectation that part of the cost of transport improvements would be funded by developer contributions but, given the current uncertainties, we feel at the present time there is no benefit in speculating what proportion of such costs might be borne by the private sector and the various agencies within the public sector that might be involved in such a scheme. In a Westminster Hall debate on March 8th Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton MP, LDem) stated: "The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was right to warn that while regeneration and extra investment is needed, how that is done is crucial. North Harlow/ BP new town would not be sustainable." How do you react to this lack of support for the sustainability of your project? We welcome a wide range of debate on the Harlow North project. It is our belief that the proposed development will bring the extra homes, employment opportunities and infrastructure investment needed for regeneration of the greater Harlow area to occur. Our intention is to ensure that in both a strategic and physical sense, Harlow North is a sustainable development. In your evidence to the Environmental Audit Select Committe you stated "Ropemaker propose to establish a local "delivery vehicle" comprising Hertfordshire and Essex County Councils, Harlow and East Herts District Councils and themselves. The purpose would be to establish agreed common objectives, procedures, content, community involvement, funding and programming. It would also act as the link with central government for any actions or funding decisions." Why do you think a land owner who would profit from the development should be involved in delivery; surely this is for democratically accountable bodies alone? It is quite right that Government should set standards and objectives for development, and take a lead on community involvement. As stated in the ODPM's Regional Spatial Strategy, the regional planning body should work in partnership with a wide range of stakeholders, including the landowner, as well as district and county councils, to deliver policy and strategy for development. Why should anyone in Harlow support this project when:- 1, Harlow can accomodate its housing need within its present boundary. 2, There is no possible guarantee that this project will contribute anything at all to Harlows present infrastructure regeneration needs now. 3, That it is very possible that its boundary's will not be redrawn to enclose the project therefore allowing all the Council Tax receipts to accrue to East Herts and all of the burden to fall upon Harlow. The Boundary Commission have already stated they will not be revisiting this area for the foreseeable future. 1 - The Government's Sustainable Communities Plan (2003) set out a strategic agenda and programme for growth in the London Stansted?Peterborough-Cambridge corridor, among other things. In accordance with this, RSS14: The Draft East of England Plan ? currently out for consultation ? has identified key centres for growth across the East of England, of which Harlow is one. This document clearly emphasises the importance of addressing "the issues of major economic growth focused on Stansted Airport and the M11 corridor, and the need for regeneration, mainly at Harlow but also in the Lee Valley area. The strategy is to strike a balance here, ensuring that growth and change delivers regeneration first." It goes on to specifically mention Harlow, citing "major urban extensions to the north to provide at least 10,000 dwellings and substantial employment growth by 2021 in a form that achieves an effective and environmentally sensitive linkage across the Stort Valley and respects flight path, environmental and other constraints" The Harlow North development offers the opportunities for a step change for the regeneration of Harlow, as well as addressing regional and national plans for growth. 2 - If the regeneration and growth strategies for Harlow described in the draft East of England Plan are confirmed, the public sector delivery bodies will act to ensure that the infrastructure for Harlow as a whole is substantially improved, no doubt seeking appropriate contributions from private sector developers. Additionally, the development of Harlow North should help to attract new businesses to the town, which in turn will provide much needed revenue to support enhanced infrastructure. 3 - While the county boundaries may remain unmoved, the Draft East of England Plan clearly states that "where urban areas adjoin local authority boundaries or are administered by more than one local development document, local authorities will need to co-operate to develop strategies [and] establish needs." Concerning Harlow, The Draft East of England Plan notes that "the government's regeneration strategy for Harlow will be delivered by a joint local development document, prepared by the three district and two county councils, and by a strong new delivery mechanism." This "new" mechanism would seek to find the fairest way of allocating responsibility for a range of public and other services. Should our plans for Harlow North be agreed and adopted, we would expect that the average and aggregate incomes of the town's residents would increase significantly and that there will be a corresponding uplift in the income available to the public sector to support the provision of high quality public services. We look forward to working with the government's joint delivery mechanism in the future. In response to another question, you say "Harlow North would help ensure the critical mass of demand required to improve public transport". Is this not putting the cart before the horse? No, we don't think so. Public transport services in Harlow currently struggle to provide the service that people need and demand. This may be something to do with the layout of the town. We believe however that the pattern of mixed land uses for Harlow North and the density of settlement proposed will be particularly conducive to the efficient operation of public transport services. Most people should be able to travel to where they want in Harlow, safely, speedily and cheaply by public transport. The additional demand provided by the new residents of Harlow should help the providers of the transport to achieve critical thresholds of demand for enhanced services, bringing benefit to the town's people as a whole. http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/local%20plans/Retail%20and%20Town%20Centres%20Study%20Final%20Report%20-%20minus%20appendi%85.pdf This link is to the East Herts retail and town centre study. How will your development affect its conclusion? There are many observations, suggestions and some recommendations contained in the report rather than the overall conclusion as suggested. Current Central Government planning advice and Structure Plan policy is to facilitate an appropriate scale and range of shopping facilities commensurate with the place of a particular settlement in the settlement hierarchy. Within settlements new shopping development will normally be located in town centres or edge of centre locations. The East Herts Study adopts this general approach. New retail development at Harlow will also need to comply with this approach. Expanded or new shopping facilities will need to be commensurate with the scale of Greater Harlow. We do not consider that such additional retail development would significantly affect, nor would current Government policy be likely to allow, any significant diversion of trade from established centres. A recent answer on this website refers to Harlow North as a new settlement. I thought EERA had ruled out a new settlement in the East of England Plan and any proposed development north of Harlow was to be an urban extension only We are referring to the idea of it being a settlement that is newly created in a generic sense, rather than it being a ?New Settlement'. The proposal is definitely one for a sustainable urban extension to be integrated fully into Harlow. In response to another question you say that "Harlow is not a popular and successful town for commercial offices because of its perceived image problem. Harlow North should assist in remedying this." Can you provide an example of where a town's image has been changed simply through building a new town adjacent to it? We have never implied that a town's image could be changed ?simply through building a new town adjacent to it', or a major urban extension per se. The business appeal of any town arises from many factors, so in order to address the problems of Harlow's perceived image (as reported in the Buchanan/Grimley study), improvements across a broad front are required. However, we believe that should Harlow North be built as proposed in our Prospectus, the quality of the neighbourhoods and the other environments created will prove to be very attractive to growing businesses ? especially those which are office-based. As Harlow North and Harlow become fully integrated and as regeneration takes place, the overall image problem will diminish and eventually Harlow will be seen as an attractive location for offices and businesses of all kinds. The recent study undertaken by Robin Thompson, which advocates major expansion of Harlow, says "If these [populations] were to be raised above 100,000, then the potential to improve the quality of their offer would be enhanced: for example stronger night-time economies would develop." Could you suggest what a 'night-time economy' might include, and how this would benefit the current inhabitants of Harlow? We imagine that Robin Thompson is referring to the need for, and possible benefits arising from, enhanced leisure and cultural facilities in Harlow. This might lead to a more vibrant town centre with a wider range of, for example, restaurants, theatres and music, which in turn could stimulate the economy and help make Harlow a more appealing place for new investment. EERA's endorsement of the East of England Plan on Nov 5th was conditional upon adequate government provision of the necessary infrastructure. Its endorsement was "suspended pending a re-examination of the government's willingness to support its own aspirations in financial terms" at EERA on Dec 10th. What is your reaction to this turn of events? We are following these developments with interest: We are aware of the need for a strategic approach to public investment to enable sustainable communities and growth agendas to be fulfilled. We look forward to a satisfactory resolution. The whole basis of Ropemaker's argument is that simply by (nearly) doubling Harlow's population then the town will become much more attractive for business and therefore better for everyone. Can you provide an example of a town where this has already happened? This is not the basis upon which proposals for Harlow North are founded, nor is it the primary prospective regeneration benefit of the proposed development. If Harlow North is developed as proposed - as a high quality sustainable development - it should certainly bring additional income to the subregional economy and potentially demand for a wide range of additional and improved services and facilities such as shops, public transport, local businesses and cultural and leisure amenities. We envisage that when properly integrated with Harlow itself, the new settlement will provide an excellent location for business, particularly office-based business, which is currently underrepresented in the town. Is it intended that the Harlow boundary be extended to encompass Harlow North, thus enabling Harlow Council to draw revenue from the new development? There can be no ?intention' of this kind, since Harlow North is simply a proposal for a sustainable way of meeting housing, economic and regeneration needs. It is clearly a matter for public agencies to decide how issues to do with local authority and other boundaries are determined. If Harlow develops as sub regional shopping centre what impact do you think that will have on the towns of Ware, Hertford and Bishop's Stortford? What sort of investment will they need to compete with the new sub regional centre and where will it come from? Do you think the people of Harlow want to turn their town into a sub regional shopping centre? It is appropriate that there should be a wide range of retail offers throughout the subregion and region. There is as yet no detailed plan for the retailing at Harlow North; this would emerge from discussions with a range of statutory and other bodies. We do not believe that there is anything wrong in principle with greater choice and competition ? this often has the effect of improving overall quality and diversity of offer for customers. In view of the Governments recent announcements on gaming does RPL envisage a 'regional casino' being part of the Harlow North development? There are no plans to incorporate a casino into the development. I understand the Harlow North site is crossed by a number high voltage powerlines. Recent studies have linked these to childhood leukaemia. How does RPL intend to mitigate this issue? Will RPL remedy the issue or expect the developers or the taxpayer to fund any action? Ropemaker Properties Limited is investigating the feasibility of replacing the existing overhead high voltage power line with an underground alternative. The masterplan for Harlow North will have due regard to any legal or operational requirements concerning the relationship between power lines and dwellings or other buildings. If the power lines have to be relocated as a consequence of development on Ropemaker's land then it would be appropriate for the cost of such relocation to be borne by the development. Does the Ropemakers team have a clear picture of the amount (square footage) of empty office buildings and empty industrial units in the existing town of Harlow? Why will building new office and industrial units on the north of the river Stort, across the A414 and railway line attract businesses to fill these already empty units? Surely the existing infrastructure deficit in Harlow needs to be addressed (hospitals, schools, rail and water) before building more units or houses? According to a recent report commissioned by the ODPM and produced by Colin Buchanan and Partners and GVA Grimley [?A study of the relationship between transport and development in the London-Stansted, Cambridge, Peterborough growth area', Aug 2004], Harlow is not a popular and successful town for commercial offices because of its perceived image problem. Harlow North should assist in remedying this. Additionally, some existing accommodation in Harlow which is empty may be unsuitable for modern requirements, and the opportunity to relocate into other areas may enable areas which include vacant space to be redeveloped more appropriately.With regard to infrastructure, perhaps it is the case that Harlow does not have the economic vitality to support this additional infrastructure currently? Should the proposals for Harlow North be approved we will work closely with the appropriate authorities to determine how we can best contribute to addressing any inadequacies in infrastructure. Who will pay the capital cost for the major investment in infrastructure that is planned for the whole town, particularly a public transport system that would reduce congestion and enable efficient movement throughout? As is the case for Ashford in Kent and other proposed major urban extensions, the landowner / developer will reach a series of detailed agreements with statutory and other authorities regarding the provision of new and improved infrastructure and the most appropriate way of financing this. RPL expect to make significant contributions to these costs. Harlow North would help ensure the critical mass of demand required to improve public transport. Furthermore, the land-use plan for Harlow North, which brings together a variety of uses and activities within 400m radius walkable neighbourhoods, will significantly reduce the need to travel by mechanised transport. Accordingly, movement through the town will be far more efficient than currently. If this development for 25,000 houses were to proceed it would clearly result in a considerable profit and financial return for Ropemaker Properties Ltd, who are the property nominee of the BP Pension Fund. Could BP confirm the cost of these proposals, or how much has been spent over, say the last five years, on them? I am sure that the residents of Harlow New Town would have been only too glad to receive this amount to be ear marked towards the "regeneration" of their town. Clearly, Ropemaker Properties Limited are engaged in the proposal for Harlow North as a commercial venture on behalf of the BP Pension Fund. In this regard they are not unlike every other commercial landowner / developer in the UK. But the proposal for Harlow North will only be accepted if it helps to fulfil the Government's sustainable communities policy, to which it is a direct response. We intend to respect the spirit and letter of this policy in planning for and designing an urban extension that meets high standards of urban and environmental sustainability. Expenditure on the consultant team for Harlow North is commensurate with the scale and quality aspirations of a project of this nature. Should Harlow North proceed following approval through the democratic planning system, the direct and indirect economic benefits to the residents of Harlow will be far in excess of any token gestures of the kind you suggested. The prospectus refers to "local regeneration." That is a splendid and praiseworthy aim or ideal. Few would disagree that the existing Harlow New Town requires such regeneration as a matter of urgency. Much of its housing stock is dilapidated and much of its office and factory space is unoccupied. I am left unclear as to how BP will "regenerate" Harlow. Are they proposing to allocate a fund of money or resources to the Town Council for such projects as they see fit? If so how much? Are they proposing to construct a new school or schools, new health care facilities, new transport facilities, new social care facilities, new recreational facilities or to contribute financially towards them? If so, in what amount or amounts? Please could some information be given so that the residents of Harlow possess some concrete knowledge of how the "regeneration" that is promised will be delivered to them by Ropemaker Ltd. Ropemaker Properties Limited will cooperate enthusiastically and fully with local partners to explore and agree the actions it could take to assist in the regeneration of Harlow. As described previously, the principal regeneration impacts will arise from the development of Harlow North itself, but we should be pleased to play our part in the community as a whole. Surely Harlow needs a better town, not simply a bigger one? A series of studies are currently underway to address the issue of how Harlow can become a ?better town'. There would be numerous advantages to Harlow from the development of a sustainable urban extension of the kind proposed at Harlow North. The successful development of Harlow North would enable Harlow to fulfil its potential as a subregional centre with the full range of services and facilities that this would suggest. It is anticipated that Harlow North would create the critical mass of population, demand and expenditure to justify among other things, the provision of university-level courses and facilities, significantly improved retail and public transport. We believe that the quality of the urbanism, the walkable mixed-use neighbourhoods, the public realm and individual buildings proposed for Harlow North will appeal to a balanced socio-economic mix of people whose spending power and contribution to civic society will bring widespread benefits to Harlow as a whole. Moreover, there will be a vibrant new market for commercial office space and other employment enterprises that will provide widespread opportunities for local people. The provision of up to 8,000 ?affordable' homes will enable many young families and others to enter the housing market and share in the benefits that this brings. How would the proposed plans for Harlow North help to regenerate the existing town of Harlow? The development of Harlow North would help transform Harlow into a major sub-regional centre. This critical mass would enable the creation of a wide range of new education, retail and cultural opportunities, facilities and services, accommodating at least 30,000 new jobs. Major investment in infrastructure is planned for the whole town, particularly a public transport system that would reduce congestion and enable efficient movement throughout. The emphasis on sustainability would stimulate national and international interest in the designs, construction and operation of the new places, spaces and buildings, further supporting the town's new facilities and services. The exceptionally high standards of design and durability planned for Harlow North should inspire copycat developments across the whole town. There would be opportunities for land-swaps to enable physical regeneration of some of the more run down neighbourhoods in Harlow. Environment Harlow has a world renowned sculpture collection, including works by major artists such as Rodin, Moore and Hepworth. These are predominantly public sculptures, located in the streets, shopping centres and housing estates all over Harlow. Will you be working with organisations like Harlow Art Trust to ensure Harlow North continues this tradition of Art for the People? Will this include any specific new sculpture commissions? Responsibility for delivering North Harlow is transferring from Ropemaker Properties to Harlow North Joint Venture (HNJV) - a joint venture between Land Securities and Places for People. HNJV has begun to engage with local stakeholders regarding the masterplan for North Harlow. A Public Art Strategy will be developed alongside the masterplan as the proposals evolve. That Strategy will be developed in association with local groups. You suggest anaerobic digestion as a suitable waste disposal technology for organic waste generated at Harlow North. Why did you choose this over, say, in vessel composting, or open windrow? What waste collection regime (weekly, fortnighly, 2 bin, 3 bin, separate food collections?) did you envisage for the development? A number of means of increasing the re-use and recycling of waste are likely to be required. Options include not just anaerobic digestion, but other forms of composting as well. The waste collection regime in all new development is determined by the local authority and its policies and practices. There is a European Noise Directive which is now transposed into English law that requires noise contours from airports and planes to be calculated using penalties for the sensitive evening and night periods (to more accurately reflect the annoyance caused). The result of this Directive is that it extends the respective air noise contours further to the south west of Stansted airport, towards the Harlow North site. Furthermore, now that BAA has announced its G2 proposals for a second runway with segregated mode of operation it would mean that one runway would be used for arrivals and the other for departures. Communities will normally only be directly overflown to the north-east of the new runway and to the south-west of the existing runway. If G2 were ever allowed, the result would be that the respective air noise contours for Stansted will extend even further to the south west of the existing runway. Don't these facts make the assessment of overflying of the site even worse than originally thought? The Air Traffic consultant to Ropemaker Properties Ltd advises that EU Noise Mapping has been undertaken for Stansted Airport but the predictions of future noise levels are expressed in different units to those used in UK for planning and noise. No UK Government guidance is currently available on their interpretation or use. The consequential Action Plan to be produced by Stansted Airport in the light of Action Planning Guidance to be issued by Defra, still awaits publication of that guidance. The benefit of the subsequent Action Plans over the next two decades to 2030 may reduce further the noise levels to the south of the Airport from that discussed below. The recent publication of the BAA Stansted G2 proposals has reduced the uncertainty over the future noise levels south of Stansted Airport. The proposals include consideration of future arrival and departure routes proposed by NATS (formerly National Air Traffic Services), and future noise levels illustrated by noise contours produced by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Environmental Research and Consultancy Department (ERCD). These indicate that westerly departures would be required to take an earlier north western turn upon leaving Stansted thus reducing the potential for overflying of land to the south west of Sawbridgeworth, including the area proposed for development by the draft East of England Plan. For easterly incoming aircraft, the effect of the new arrangements would be to require that arriving aircraft join the final approach path further to the south west than at present, i.e. reducing the number of aircraft turning to join the final approach path over Harlow and land to the north of Harlow. If approved, the G2 proposals also indicate that arrivals to the airport are likely to approach from the south on approximately one in four days. On the other three days arrivals would occur from the north on to the new runway north of Takeley. The G2 proposals were accompanied by detailed noise assessments for the period up to 2030, which confirm that proposed development at Harlow North would fall well outside any area where there was a potential for breach of any daytime and night time noise level objectives set by current Government guidance. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Biodiversity, announced today that water voles are to be afforded the same legal protection as otters. From April 6 it will become an offence to kill or disturb water voles, and devlopers trying to build on their habitat will have to catch every specimen in the area and provide them with a new home. As there as large number of water voles now returning to the Stort valley will this affect your plans? Have you conducted a survey of water voles in the last year? Ropemaker Properties has commissioned a wide range of ecology studies for the Harlow North site, including a survey of water voles, and this information will form part of the background data in an Environmental Statement if and when a planning application is prepared. The protection and enhancement of water vole habitat has always formed part of the overall biodiversity strategy for the Harlow North scheme. Where development proposals may have a direct or potential effect on water voles or their habitat, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that water voles are not harmed and that their conservation status is maintained thus ensuring that the proposals will comply with the relevant conservation legislation. You assert that Living Machine systems for treatment of waste water are well proven at this scale. According to thier website, the largest ever installed will treat 750,000 gallons/day. Since your proposal provide for 25,000 households each producing 77 gallons/day (OFWAT figures) ie 1,925,000 gallons/day, then do you still maintain your claim? The Living Machine is one of a range of small treatment options that may be considered. Several local treatment plants will be constructed each serving around 2,000 dwellings. Using a figure of 77 gallons/day/household, this will equate to a flow of 154,00 gallons/day for each plant which is well within the proven scale of the Living Machine I am puzzled by your response to a previous question where you state: "It is unfortunate that Ropemaker's representative at the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan was precluded by the Panel Chairman from speaking on these issues, since had he done so the alternatives to expansion of Ryemeads could have been explained." I attended and represented STOP Harlow North at the EiP and found the Panel Chair allowed a free ranging debate and even added an extra day to debate the proposals for Harlow. Although the water and sewage debate was curtailed on the second day there was ample time on the third day to debate environmental issues. The Harlow North Team raised no objections to the running of the EiP at the time why are you now implying proper process was not followed? I understand the Environment Agency does not support free standing small sewage treatment plants as they are difficult to monitor. Ropemaker Properties Limited was disappointed that there was no opportunity given on the Harlow days of the draft East of England EiP to set out our proposals for addressing foul water treatment issues for Greater Harlow, particularly as this issue featured in the Panel's findings. However it was not considered appropriate to raise objection to the process followed. The consulting engineers advising Ropemaker are not aware of any policy or practical constraint on the Environment Agency or water undertakings advancing small scale sewage treatment works as part of a planned strategy to address foul water treatment in the region. What is your reaction to the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessement under the EU Habitats Directive which state: "15.38 The growth identified in the draft RSS will have implications for the Rye Meads STW. This may need expanding to accommodate the growth identified in the draft RSS. 15.39 Expansion of the STW could result in loss of wildlife habitat, including direct loss of the European Site, or other land which may support species for which the site is designated. In the case of the SPA these are bittern and overwintering wildfowl including gadwall and shoveler. The Ramsar site interest includes other bird species as well as a nationally important species of the invertebrate Micronecta minutissima (a water boatman). The expansion of the STW is thus constrained. 15.40 If the STW cannot be expanded then there is a risk that water quality and flood risk in the River Lee may be adversely affected. There are then possible discharge related effects on water quality dependant aquatic flora and fauna, and thus potentially on SPA and Ramsar waterbird species. We therefore could not conclude that the draft East of England RSS would have no effect on the integrity of the Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar Site. 15.41 An in-combination affect with the growth and development identified in the London Plan has also been highlighted. The growth and development may have an impact on the integrity of the Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar Site. 15.42 Thus we cannot conclude that policies SS3, H1, WAT2, LA1 and LA3 of the draft East of England RSS will have no effect on the integrity of the Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar Site." i.e. There may be an impact of your building on the protected sites and alternative should now be considered? Ropemaker Properties Ltd has always regarded the expansion of the Ryemeads sewage treatment works as only one of a number of options for dealing with increased foul water arising from development in the Ryemeads catchment area. Ropemaker's preferred option would be to install neighbourhood based local treatment facilities in the Harlow North scheme. Such technologies are now available at this scale and are well proven, e.g. 'Living Machines'. In Ropemaker's view such an approach is less energy intensive than use of a foul main sewer and major treatment works, and has the additional advantage of augmenting local surface water flows to benefit nature conservation interests. It is unfortunate that Ropemaker's representative at the Examinantion in Public of the draft East of England Plan was precluded by the Panel Chairman from speaking on these issues, since had he done so the alternatives to expansion of Ryemeads could have been explained. Should one of your Living Machine sewage treatment plants fail how will you prevent untreated foul water entering the River Stort? Sewage treatment systems are designed on a fail safe system to preclude untreated effluent entering watercourses. The local sewage treatment works for Harlow North will be designed with stand-by equipment to allow for failure of mechanical equipment. Power failure will be addressed either by designing in a standby generator or with the provision to bring a portable power generator to the site in an emergency. How will polluted run off from roads, paths and hard standing be prevented from contaminating the River Stort ? It would be normal practice for the local planning authority to impose a planning condition requiring a detailed scheme for prevention of pollution to watercourses resulting from run off from road, paths and other hard surfaces. This normally requires developers to install oil, petrol and grit interceptors in piped drainage systems, or where SUDS is employed, the contaminants are trapped by sand layers which form an intergral part of the construction of the surface and are then subjected to biological degradation. Could Harlow North be one of Gordon Brown's new Eco towns? Will you be submitting a bid? Ropemaker Properities Limited understands that the proposal for 'Eco Towns', as currently conceived by the Government, only relates to free standing complete new settlements of 5-20,000 houses. Ropemaker fully endorses the need for new development to be conceived using well founded and sustainable design principles and would like to see the 'Eco Towns' concept extended to include urban extensions, such as the proposals for urban extensions at Harlow. Today Ms Cooper, Housing Minister, insisted that the rules are being tightened to ensure there is no building on land considered to be at "high risk" of flooding by the Environment Agency. As the Agency has previously refused to support your Living Bridge across the floodplain does this now put paid to all notions of connectivity between Harlow North and the existing town? To date, the proposal for a 'Living Bridge' has been schematic in nature to provide a basis for discussion on the principle of such development between existing Harlow and development to the north. Ropemaker Properties Limited considers there would be no technical impediment in principle to increasing the capacity of the existing link. The inclusion of built development on the 'Bridge' would further enhance the connectivity between new and old but it is not essential to creating connectivity. The Guardian is reporting "New homes and schools should not be built within 60 metres of high voltage power lines until the link with childhood cancers is better understood by scientists, according to a committee of MPs. They also recommend that home buyers should be provided with information on the level of electromagnetic fields within homes before they buy. The committee says the science is still unclear and that any health effects are weak, but in the meantime it argues that the government should adopt a precautionary approach." Can you accommodate this within your scheme? http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2128743,00.html Ropemaker Properties Limited is aware of the ongoing discussion concerning the suggested statistical link between childhood cancer and electromagetic fields both within homes and other public buildings and from external sources including overhead power lines. Ropemaker Properties Limited would be obliged to implement whatever new standards were proposed by Government in relation to home construction and would see no difficulty in adopting.a precautionary approach to the siting of new development near external sources of electromagnetic fields. The BBC is reporting that Mr Brown's official spokesman said today that the government could "give assurances" that all land currently classed as green belt would remain so under new plans to increase housing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6288524.stm How would this affect your plans? Aren't you planning on building on the Green Belt north of Harlow? The planning advisors to Ropemaker Properties Limited comment that under existing planning policies,while land designated as Green Belt is intended to endure for the long term, this does not mean that Green Belts have never been reviewed in the past or could not be reviewed in the future as housing and other considerations require. In the case of the Harlow area, the Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan propose a review of the existing Green Belt boundary. This is in order to facilitate sustainable urban extensions as a way of accommodating pressing housing needs. Government policy towards the East of England, including the proposed review of the Green Belt around Harlow, will be made known when the final version of the East of England Plan is published later this year. Bats, not birds, appear to be the main victims of land-based wind turbines, according to a report by the US National Research Council reported in New Scientist. As there is a very large bat population north of Harlow how will your plans for wind turbines on the site be modified in light of this data? (Asked on May 14th) Preparatory work has identified a number of renewable energy technologies that may be feasible for integration into a sustainable urban extension to Harlow including biomass, photovoltaics, ground heat pumps and small scale wind turbines. The selection of which renewable energy technologies would be appropriate for the area, having regard to their environmental implications, would be the subject of detailed studies when and if a planning application is prepared. You previously stated that it would be "inappropriate to release information in a piecemeal way" when asked to release environmental and archaeological studies. You have now release the latter but not the former. When can we expect publication of all your environmental studies or will you now be releasing studies in a piecemeal fashion? Ropemaker Properties Ltd has made the archaeological artifacts resulting from survey work and associated data available to add to the public record of the historic use and development of the area. Environmental studies, and the assessment thereof, will be made available as part of the Environmental Assessment, as and when a planning application is prepared and submitted for the Harlow North scheme. The BRE EcoHomes system was last month incorporated into the Government's Code for Sustainable Homes. Will each and every home at Harlow North be built to the highest (6*) standard in the Code? Ropemaker Properties Ltd wishes Harlow North to be an exemplary sustainable development and will seek to implement the highest standards of design and specification in all aspects of the scheme, including the relevant BRE EcoHomes standards. You previously stated "A range of environmental studies have been commissioned; not all are complete and the overall analysis will take some months to conclude. We will endeavour to publish these in an accessible form for the Enquiry in Public for the East of England Plan". Why did you not so publish these studies? Ropemaker Properties Ltd made available such information as was approprioate for the Examination in Public process. The planning consultants to Ropemaker Properties Ltd advise that the Examination in Public process is intended to focus on strategic planning principles rather than site specific matters and it would have been inappropraite to publish site specific data. The Harlow herald is reporting that " However, Ropemakers Properties Ltd, ......say(ing) the Rye Meads sewerage works in Stansted Abbotts is adequate for the development and can support expansion for the town." Why did you agree there were issues with sewage treatment and present alternative proposals to deal with sewage at the EiP? The expansion of Rye Meads STW is one option to address the increase in sewage treatment capacity required to meet the needs of a growing region. In respect of Harlow North, Ropemaker Properties Ltd has considered other, locally based solutions, including neighbourhood based treatment facilities such as 'Living Machines' which it considers offers many advantages over 'conventional' large scale treatment facilities. In the Harlow Herald Paul Brighton says that "there are other options available to increase capacity at Rye Meads sewage treatment plant"? What are these options? Are you still pursuing your option of on site "Living Machines" which we have been advised by contacts at the Envioronment Agency are not generally supported? Expansion of Rye Meads STW is one option to address the increase in sewage treatment capacity required to meet the needs of a growing region. In respect of Harlow North, Ropemaker Properties Ltd has considered other, locally based solutions, including neighbour hood based treatment facilities such as 'Living Machines' which it considers offers many advantages over 'conventional' large scale treatment facilities. Your renewable energy advisors XCO2 claim on their website that they "are advising on energy and building performance matters and are setting the energy strategy for a secure, sustainable and 100% renewable supply .... from day one" for Harlow North. Is this right - will Harlow North be carbon neutral from the outset? The objective for Harlow North is that all dwellings should be carbon neutral. Indeed under Government policy and legislative initiatives it is likely that by 2008 all new homes will be required to achieve a carbon neutral status. Would each and every house in the proposed Harlow North be "carbin neutral", as required by current government policy? What methods of energy generation are your proposing to use, given that windpower generators are generally not allowed on airport flightpaths? The objective for Harlow North is that all dwellings should be carbon neutral. Indeed under Government policy and legislative initiatives it is likely that by 2008 all new homes will be required to achieve a carbon neutral status. Options for energy generation within the project are currently being examined but may include biomass, photovoltaic, solar heating, ground heat pumps as well as domestic scale wind generation. Have you registered your archaeological survey data with the County Archaeological Survey department? No. Studies are still being finalised. Will you now release all your enviornmental and archealogical data so it can be scrutinised during the current public consultation? Ropemaker Properties Ltd has responded to this matter previously and considers that it would be inappropriate to release information in a piecemeal way. This question was first submitted 22/11 but no answer to date. Uttlesford District Council has rejected BAA's request to remove restrictions at Stansted Airport. Will constraining growth at Stansted, with the subsequent impact on employment prospects, exacerbate the jobs housing imbalance at Harlow? and reduce the attraction of the Harlow North project? please see previous response, below Climate change has become the key issue when considering major development projects. The recent Stern Report has seen all political parties preparing new policies for curbing carbon emissions. Today, Uttlesford District Council rejected BAA's request to remove restrictions at Stansted Airport. Will constraining growth at Stansted, with the subsequent impact on employment prospects, exacerbate the jobs housing imbalance at Harlow? and reduce the attraction of the Harlow North project? please see previous response to this question, below Climate change is now the key issue when considering major development projects. The recent Stern Report has seen all political parties presenting new policies for curbing carbon emissions. Today, Uttlesford District Council has been advised to reject BAA's request to remove restrictions at Stansted Airport. Will constraining growth at Stansted, with the subsequent impact on employment prospects, exacerbate the jobs housing imbalance at Harlow? and reduce the attraction of the Harlow North project? The growth of Stansted airport is only one of a number of potential employment growth opportunities for the Harlow area identified by the draft East of England Plan. These potential growth sectors include European headquarters, regional offices, media and culture, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals ICT/telecoms, logistics, distribution and 'university-level and research based institutions (Draft East of England Plan paragraphs 5.127 and 5.131 refer). The growth of Harlow, and the proposals for Harlow North, are not predicated on the expansion of Stansted airport. It is anticipated that a reduced level of growth of Stansted airport, if it were to occur, would not have a significant effect on the prospects for employment growth in the other identified sectors identified above. The growth of these other sectors would also have the effect of significantly widening the employment offer of the town. What actions have you taken to implement the Stort Valley Park with other partner organisations? The concept has been around for a number of years but nothing seems to have been implemented.Why? The implementation of the Stort Valley Park will require the agreement of a number of landowners and other statutory and local organisations. Appropriate and secure funding, both for capital works and for ongoing maintenance, will also be required to bring forward the investment in the area that is required. If and when a planning application is prepared, Ropemaker Properties Ltd will suggest a number of funding options to promote the potential of the area to provide for nature conservation together with formal and informal recreation facilities. This will include a suggested delivery mechanism for the scheme, to be progressed in association with the local authority or other agency. You imply in a previous answer that the Stort Valley Park was (as)proposed by Ropemaker Properties Ltd . Was it not a concept first introduced in the Harlow Green Infrastructure Plan by others? Did you make input into this Plan or simply adopted its ideas? Proposals for a Stort Valley Park have been included in all the various iterations of the proposals for Harlow North. It is considered the area is a much underutilised resource that has considerable potential to serve a number of purposes including nature conservation, formal and informal recreation. Ropemaker Properties Ltd was not involved in preparing the Green Infrastructure Plan but notes with interest that many of the ideas and proposals in the Plan for the Stort Valley are similar to those promoted as part of the Harlow North scheme Your archaeology consultants say on their website that the current designs show a development which does not suppress the Historic Environment but rather draws inspiration from it whilst conserving and enhancing all historic assets present on site. This sounds interesting. Can you explain how all the historic assets will be enhanced in more detail? The proposals for Harlow North, if and when a planning application is prepared, will contain a range of measures and design initiatives to reflect the archaeological and historic environment of the area. In the Harlow Citizen Brian Tisdall said the proposals for Gilston Great Park partially address the planning issues affecting the area. In what ways does Gilston Great Park address the planning issues affecting the area? The Harlow North web site is intended to provide a facility to inform interested parties about the design and planning of the proposals for Harlow North. It is not intended to act as a vehicle for others' schemes. When you gave the figure of 145 hectares of all 'publicly accessible open space' for your current 10,000 houses proposals you now concede that this includes the Stort Valley Park. How much of the Stort Vallley Park is within your land holdings, what involvement do you have with the scheme and what investment are you making in it? If none or very little some might think it is disingenuous of you to claim it as open space within your proposals. The extent of the Stort Valley Park as proposed by Ropemaker Properties Ltd?includes its own landholding and other ownerships,?including English Partnerships and Harlow District Council. Ropemaker Properties Ltd?proposes an open space and ecology strategy?consistent with the area's location within the Stort Valley. If its proposals are endorsed, then establishment and funding of the strategy would be addressed through the planning process, with the involvement of other stakeholders. You submitted a Modelling report to the Environment Agency earlier this summer. Will you now publish it on this site? Oct 18th Ropemaker Properties Ltd has undertaken initial flood risk studies to inform the design of the Harlow North Project. It is considered it would be inappropriate to release a partly completed study at this time, which in any event will be modified as the proposals for Harlow North scheme evolve. If and when a planning application is prepared a formal Flood Risk Assessment will be prepared to accompany the Environmental Statement . The Daily Telegragh are reporting that "Industry experts say Macquarie Bank has borrowed so much for its ?8bn takeover (of Thames Water) that there will be little spare cash for much-needed investment. While the regulator Ofwat is unlikely to allow any more hikes in water bills in the short term, Thames Water's eight million customers could see the quality of their service deteriorate further." When Rye Meads need so much investment to cope with the sewage treament issues in the Stansted /M11 corridor should this be a concern for any growth at Harlow? Oct 18th In the view of Ropemaker Properties Ltd the sale of Thames Water would have no effect on the delivery of investemt required to upgrade and extend sewage treatment facilities to serve the Thames Water area. New figures released this week by the Game Conservancy Trust show that numbers of grey partridges have increased elevenfold in Royston over the past five years. The experimental project was set up on Greys Farm in the town in 2001 to demonstrate the best management techniques to restore the iconic British bird. Would this be an appropriate project to extend across your land holdings? I understand there are already pheasant shoots on your land. 11th Oct Thank you for your question. This has been forwarded to an appropriate member of the project team, and will be answered in full as soon as possible. The Rye Meads RSPB reserve have announced that the kingfishers raised two broods this summer and there were an astonishing 47 pairs of common terns breeding, the highest number for a few years. Why are you prepared to risk this delicate balance of nature by building upstream of the Meads? 11th Oct Thank you for your question. This has been forwarded to an appropriate member of the project team, and will be answered in full as soon as possible. You state " The results of the archaeological investigations would be presented as part of the Environmental Statement if and when a planning application is prepared". Surely as a social responsible company you would want to release the data on what you have discovered to the community for their use as soon as the study is complete, which I believe it is? Why are you witholding valuable archaeological data from researchers? I understand that BP has been criticised for witholding data about corrosion testing in Alaska; this is a worrying trend. 12th Oct Thank you for your question. This has been forwarded to an appropriate member of the project team, and will be answered in full as soon as possible. What is your reaction to the reports today on the BBC that : "Britain should tackle future droughts by recycling more sewage effluent as drinking water, civil engineers say. In its State of the Nation report for 2006, the Institution of Civil Engineers also called for a 20% rise in water prices to fund improved supply." Oct 17th The growing demands on water resources from both the existing and new population will require innovative design and management solutions in order to ensure future water supplies are sustainable. The proposals for Harlow North incorporate some technologies, e.g. Sustainable Drainage Systems, rainwater harvesting, separate potable and non potable supplies and efficient appliances to achieve this. It will be for the industry regulator to determine the investment levels required by water supply companies to achive greater effectiveness in the use of water. Government could stipulate measures designed to manage water usage through Building Regulations and/or development control requirements through the planning regime. What is your reaction to the following exchange in the House of Lords this summer, 3rd July, especially as Lord Rooker was involved in the early stages of the draft East of England Plan: "Lord Taylor of Blackburn (Labour): My Lords, would my noble friend kindly speak to his colleagues in other departments to prohibit development in the south-east? People can come to the north-west, where we have excellent water and ample opportunity for development. Lord Rooker (Minister of State (Sustainable Farming and Food), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) My Lords, I absolutely agree with that. There is something immoral about the idea of moving water round the country. We could not do that anyway, given the scale and weight of the water that would need to be moved. Yet we have in the Midlands, the north-east and the north-west natural resources and land. Surely it is the people and the jobs that need to move. We need some symbolic moves because we know that the country is very unequally balanced with all this pressure in the south-east. The answer is to move the infrastructure to where the resources are." 17th Oct The planning advisors to Ropemaker Properties Ltd state that the Government has no proposals to effect a major redistribution of population growth around the regions and this is reflected in the current emerging round of Regional Spatial Stategies, including the draft East of England Plan. What is your reaction to CPRE, Friends of the Earth and the local MP, Mark Prisk endorsing the rival proposals for Gilston Great Park? Oct 17th The reaction of Ropemaker Properties Ltd to the 'Gilston Great Park' document and comments solicited thereon have been the subject of a press release. Ropemaker Properties Ltd will make a formal response to the document in due course in writing. Do you see any merit in the proposals brough forward by the local parish councils for Gilston Great Park? Oct 16th The reaction of Ropemaker Properties Ltd to the 'Gilston Great Park' document and comments solicited thereon have been the subject of a press release. Ropemaker Properties Ltd will make a formal response to the document in due course in writing. Why in your response to the press on SHN's proposals for Gilston Great Park did you try to make our that the new proposals contained ideas that would require substantianal built development when no such thing is proposed? Why did you not contact SHN to check the facts before making this unsubstantiated statement as this type of spin does you no credit? Oct 16th This question falls outside the scope of this website as it does not relate to the design and planning of the proposals for Harlow North. The reaction of Ropemaker to the 'Gilston Great Park' document and comments solicited thereon have been the subject of a press release. Ropemaker Properties Ltd will make a formal response to the document in due course in writing. You state that the Harlow Development Corporation report Harlow Expansion, 1974 which states "Expansion to the north would mean the loss of some of the most beautiful landscape in Hertfordshire" overstates the value of the landscape in the local and regional context. You are aware of who authored the report? 12th Oct The Harlow Expansion Report 1974 was published by Harlow Development Corporation. The authorship of the main report (Part 1) is not attributed, neither are the Appendices in Part 2. The Design Report in Part 2 is attributed to Sir Frederick Gibbard. You state " The results of the archaeological investigations would be presented as part of the Environmental Statement if and when a planning application is prepared". Surely as a social responsible company you would want to release the data on what you have discovered to the community for their use as soon as the study is complete, which I believe it is? Why are you witholding valuable archaeological data from researchers? I understand that BP has been criticised for witholding data about corrosion testing in Alaska; this is a worrying trend. 12th Oct The findings of the archaeological surveys are currently being finalised. Discussions will then take place with Hertfordshire Council concerning the transfer of this information and for inclusion on the SMR database. At the same time discussions will also take place on the depositing of artefacts at an appropriate local museum. The BP Pension Fund has no involvement with corrosion testing in Alaska. The Rye Meads RSPB reserve have announced that the kingfishers raised two broods this summer and there were an astonishing 47 pairs of common terns breeding, the highest number for a few years. Why are you prepared to risk this delicate balance of nature by building upstream of the Meads? 11th Oct The potential effects of the Harlow North development would be considered through the preparation of an Environmental Statement that would accompany any planning application. The environmental impact assessment would consider the direct effects on the site and surrounding features of interest in a comprehensive way and propose appropriate mitigation measures where necessary and where appropriate. New figures released this week by the Game Conservancy Trust show that numbers of grey partridges have increased elevenfold in Royston over the past five years. The experimental project was set up on Greys Farm in the town in 2001 to demonstrate the best management techniques to restore the iconic British bird. Would this be an appropriate project to extend across your land holdings? I understand there are already pheasant shoots on your land. 11th Oct The ecology advisors to Ropemaker Properties advise that the introduction of Grey Partridge into an emerging urban context would not be an appropriate strategy for the Harlow North development. In e-mail correspondence with the Environment Agency that we have seen you appear to have coppleted your flood risk assessemnt report (Modelling Report) and published it earlier this summer. Can this be made available via this website without delay? 10th October Ropemaker Properties has undertaken initial flood risk studies to inform the design of the Harlow North project but has not published a Flood Risk Asessment. A Flood Risk Assessment would be submitted with the Environmental Statement, if and when a planning application is progressed. My concerns are of course the environment. I have lived in Harlow since 1965 and my husband since 1958. Of course we accept that things have to change but I believe the effects on the environment will not be beneficial. We are lucky to live in a very nice area of Old Harlow where we can benefit from fields at the back of us at the moment. We also pay a premium for living in this so called semi-rural area with our house prices reaching the one of the highest levels. We enjoy and respect the countryside we have around us. My concerns are that the proposal will not only bring more traffic to the town (will harlow be in a permenant grid lock) but also taking away the countryside we should all try to keep. If the house building in this country continues at the rate it is at the moment I feel the whole of the United Kingdom will be eventually be concreted over. And also what about the wild life that this build we obviously destroy and will have such an adverse effect on. The proposals for growth at Harlow contained in the East of England Plan arise from pressing problems of the need to provide further housing in the south east, to address existing and future housing needs of the population and housing affordability issues. Government policy is to ensure that these requirements should be met in a sustainable way and favours large scale urban extensions, where a balanced mix of homes, jobs and services can be provided. It is anticipated that this approach to spatial planning, as set out in the proposals for Harlow North, will help to reduce car borne commuting and the level of car usage generally. The proposals for allocating land for development to the north of Harlow in the draft East of England Plan include proposals for substantial investment in infrastructure to support the expanded town, including investment in transport. Any development proposals would need to be designed in a way which minimised their effects on the environmental assets in the area, and where opprtunities arise to enhance or provide new environmental features. You state " Many, if not most, towns and cities in the UK originated as settlements that developed astride rivers, often as a result of their being a strategic focus on a favourable crossing point of a river." Isn't this precisely the point? Towns develop astride rivers at a convenient crossing point where the flood plain is narrow. Harlow was not developed to the north because the floodplain is so wide. The issue of the extent of the floodplain and its significance on development north of the River Stort has been addressed through our previous answers on this website and Ropemaker Properties has nothing further to add. I believe while the Envioronment Agency agreed that Ropemaker could probably could find technical solutions to all their practical concerns but there was still a policy problem associated with approving the Living Bridge proposal. I understand the policy objection are: 1.The Sequential Test. PPG25 states that a development should not be placed in the floodplain if there is a suitable alternative site nearby. It does however allow for essential infrastructure to be located in the floodplain provided it is properly mitigated. The EA's view is that there is already essential infrastructure there in the form of the A414 and that there is alternative land to the north of the floodplain. 2.Precedent/Control. The EA expressed the view that if they were to allow the Living Bridge in functional floodplain, this would set a precedent for inappropriate development in floodplains. 3.Promote Further Development. Any development in the floodplain may be a catalyst for further intrusions into the floodplain over the coming years. Is that correct ? To date proposals for the Living Bridge have been schematic in nature to provide a basis for discussion on the principles of such a link. If proposals for a Living Bridge were included with the Harlow North scheme the planning application and Environmental Statement would need to address issues of flood plain capacity and flood plain flow. This assessment could only be undertaken in the context of a detailed design which has not yet been undertaken. In all planning decisions there is a need to balance sometimes conflicting policy advice. In this case the merits of achieving enhanced connectivity between Harlow North and the remainder of Harlow would need to be balanced against the argument that it could set a precedent for inappropriate development elsewhere. Could you explain what technical solutions there are to overcoming the Environment Agency's objections to the Living Bridge? To date proposals for the Living Bridge have been schematic in nature to provide a basis for discussion on the principles of such a link. If proposals for a Living Bridge were included with the Harlow North scheme the planning application and Environmental Statement would need to address issues of flood plain capacity and flood plain flow. This assessment could only be undertaken in the context of a detailed design which has not yet been undertaken. In all planning decisions there is a need to balance sometimes conflicting policy advice. In this case the merits of achieving enhanced connectivity between Harlow North and the remainder of Harlow would need to be balanced against the argument that it could set a precedent for inappropriate development elsewhere. Can you give some examples of major succesful cities in the UK that have a floodplain, river, mainline railway and strategic road route running through the middle of them? Many, if not most, towns and cities in the UK originated as settlements that developed astride rivers, often as a result of their being a strategic focus on a favourable crossing point of a river. Subsequent new communications routes, road, canal or rail have then often used the route of the river as convenient corridor. Did your archealogy work discover any evidence of a Roman road from the Roman Temple in Harlow toward Braughing? Did you look for such evidence as it is widely suspected that such a road exists? (Sept 20th) The results of the archaeological investigations would be presented as part of the Environmental Statement if and when a planning application is prepared. Could you describe the recognised the landscape value of original parkland retained within Gilston Park (as opposed to the Gilston Park Estate)? Did you not approach the land owners with a view to buying this land in the last few years? (2nd October) This question falls outside the scope of this website as it does not relate to the design and planning of the proposals for Harlow North. You state the " scheme provides for approximately 145 hectares of publicly accessible green space within the built development" but your key facts page says there will ony be 80 hectares of sports fields and public parks. Can you explain the difference? (Sept 28th) 'The figure of 145 hectares of all 'publicly accessible open space' relates to the most recent proposal for 10,000 dwellings. The figure of 80 hectares referred to relates to 'sports fields and urban parks' in respect of proposals for 25,000 dwellings. The difference is accounted for by the inclusion of a number of significant public areas on the periphery of the area, e.g the Forest Park and the Stort Valley Park, in the current proposals for 10,000 dwellings. You state "The route to the north of the developed area (on the front cover of the newsletter) is intended to link to the proposed Forest Park. The form of the route, e.g. road, shared pedestrian/cycleway would be a matter for discussion at detailed design stage" However the colour of the route (green) suggests it a quite heavily used route if I undertsand your Syntax model. Are you sure it is not intended as an exit route to the existing road network to the north? (Sept 27th) We confirm that it is the intention of Ropemaker Properties Ltd that this route should access the proposed Forest Park. No wider role is envisaged I believe while the Envioronment Agency agreed that Ropemaker could probably could find technical solutions to all their practical concerns but there was still a policy problem associated with approving the Living Bridge proposal. I understand the policy objection are: 1.The Sequential Test. PPG25 states that a development should not be placed in the floodplain if there is a suitable alternative site nearby. It does however allow for essential infrastructure to be located in the floodplain provided it is properly mitigated. The EA's view is that there is already essential infrastructure there in the form of the A414 and that there is alternative land to the north of the floodplain. 2.Precedent/Control. The EA expressed the view that if they were to allow the Living Bridge in functional floodplain, this would set a precedent for inappropriate development in floodplains. 3.Promote Further Development. Any development in the floodplain may be a catalyst for further intrusions into the floodplain over the coming years. Is that correct ? Dear Mr Clark, To date proposals for the Living Bridge have been schematic in nature to provide a basis for discussion on the principles of such a link. If proposals for a Living Bridge were included with the Harlow North scheme the planning application and Environmental Statement would need to address issues of flood plain capacity and flood plain flow. This assessment could only be undertaken in the context of a detailed design which has not yet been undertaken. In all planning decisions there is a need to balance sometimes conflicting policy advice. In this case the merits of achieving enhanced connectivity between Harlow North and the remainder of Harlow would need to be balanced against the argument that it could set a precedent for inappropriate development elsewhere. How much of the green space in your proposals in within the urdan environment and how much in the forest at the north end of the site? It appears that most (say 80%) of the green space is not actually with the "town" as it is with the existing town of Harlow with its green wedges The proposals for Harlow North have incorporated a different approach to urban design than the 'Green Wedges' that form part of the Harlow New Master Plan. In accordance with present Government planning policies, the form of the proposals for Harlow North envisages built development at a higher density within neighbourhoods in order to facilitate a more sustainable pattern of built development . Nevertheless, the neighbourhoods will incorporate formal and informal parks and gardens, formal and informal sports areas together with other publicly accessible open spaces. A significant element of the open space is concentrated in specific locations (e.g. the tributary Valley Corridors) where it would not impinge on the creation of walkable neighbourhoods. The provisional land budget for the Harlow North scheme provides for approximately 145 hectares of publicly accessible green space within the built development, this is over 50% of the total proposed in the scheme. Your plans show a forest at the northern end of your site at 25,000 homes scale. If only 10,000 homes are approved will you bring that forest and the redesignated green belt further towards Harlow and tightly bind the boundaries of the development at the smaller scale? Ropemaker Properties Ltd anticipates that proposals for the Forest Park to the north of Harlow North would form an integral part of the proposals for a scheme of 10,000 dwellings. Given that large elements of the Forest Park already exist in the form of existing forest areas it would not be practically possible to relocate this proposal. The matter of the review of the Green Belt boundary would be a matter for the Local Planning Authority. At 25,000 homes scale what is the closest approach of your proposed development to Hunsdon. You state in your recent newsletter that the development will be carefully planned to maintain a level of separation. What level did you have in mind? 10 metres, 20 metres, 50 metres, 100 metres or more than 100 metres? This is a key factor in whether Harlow North would swallow up all the villages to the north. The indicative proposals for up to 25,000 homes north of Harlow in the more recent literature produced by Ropemaker Properties Limited show the scheme separated by a minimum distance of approximately 200 metres from the rear of properties at the south eastern end of Hunsdon village. It should not be assumed that areas near the boundary of the scheme would necessarily take the form of built development. In some locations it may be appropriate to have a managed urban edge, e.g. landscaping and open space. These matters would be the subject of further consideration and detailed design at the appropriate time.. The majority of the green space in your proposals is located at the north of the site as woodland. Harlow currently has a number of green wedges separating neighbourhoods. You don't appear to be proposing wedges on the same scale with the same level of separation. Is that correct? The proposals for Harlow North have incorporated a different approach to urban design than the 'Green Wedges' that form part of the Harlow New Master Plan. In accordance with present Government planning policies, the form of the proposals for Harlow North envisages built development at a higher density within neighbourhoods in order to facilitate a more sustainable pattern of built development . Nevertheless, the neighbourhoods will incorporate formal and informal parks and gardens, formal and informal sports areas together with other publicly accessible open spaces. A significant element of the open space is concentrated in specific locations (e.g. the tributary Valley Corridors) where it would not impinge on the creation of walkable neighbourhoods. The provisional land budget for the Harlow North scheme provides for approximately 145 hectares of publicly accessible green space within the built development, this is over 50% of the total proposed in the scheme. An ongoing study by British Waterways and the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust has unexpectedly found large numbers of water voles thriving in East Herts. Does this agree wiith your studies of the Stort valley? Surveys undertaken on behalf of Ropemaker Properties Ltd indicated the past presence of Water Voles along the Stort and Stort Navigation although no signs of recent activity were found in the survey area. There was no evidence of the presence of water voles along the Eastwick Valley Stream, Fiddler's Brook and the High Wych Valley Stream. You claim that Harlow North would create new wildlife habitats as well as preserving existing ones. Can you provide examples of these new habitats and quantify what percenatge of your land would still be undeveloped green space compared to near 100% today? New and improved wildlife habitat would be provided principally in the Stort Valley Park, the Forest Park, Eastwick Valley Park, Upper and Lower Gilston Parks and Fox Earth's Park. The location and extent of these area are shown in Figure 18 of our publication, 'The sustainable growth of Harlow'. The provisional land budget for the project indicates that some 35.9% of the site area would be allocated to woodland and publicly accessible informal open space. In addition 6.7% of the site area would be allocated to formal sports facilities, public playing fields and amenity areas. L-P Archaeology have published a case study of the work they have done for you, at a cost of ?300,000, on the Harlow North proposals. Will you be publishing the results for the local history societies and museums to study in the near future? L-P Archaeology have carried out investigations for Ropemaker. It is not considered appropriate to sanction a general release of information as the studies are not yet completed. In response to another question, you refer to Ropemaker's agricultural holding as ".. so denuded of parkland features its landscape value has been misclassified". If Ropemaker's have not cared for the land during their tenure, then why should be believe they will care about it in future? The original parkland landscape within the Gilston Park Estate was denuded before Ropemaker Properties Ltd acquired the site. It is inevitable that the character of the area would change as a consequence of the proposals for Harlow North, however the scheme would retain significant elements of the remaining parkland landscape and would facilitate new landscape features in accordance with the proposals set out in the Green Infrastructure Plan. You have previously published the high level results of birds surveys on this site but not the whole report. You now state the environmental studies are not complete. Why were you able to release these results but now decline to publish any studies for 2004 and 2005? The previous answer addressed the issue of protected species however it is not considered appropriate to sanction a general release of information as the bird studies are not yet completed. In your previous answers about bird life on your land holding you have not mentioned the significant populations of Marsh Tits and Spot Flys. Why? Studies of the bird populations in the Harlow North area have been undertaken over the last two years, which are ongoing, and this information will be used to support an environmental impact assessment undertaken of any proposals for the area. What is your reaction to the sighting of the rare Pine Grosbeak in the Gilston area? The ecology consultants to Ropemaker Properties Limited advise that the Pine Grosbeak is native to the northern forests of northern Europe, Russia, and North America. It is a very rare visitor to the UK during migration periods, autumn or early spring. How might you address the concerns in the Inspectors report that: "Even then, and assuming water cycle and transport issues could be resolved, there are also objections on landscape and other environmental grounds, particularly for Harlow north"? These questions relate to the findings of the Panel that held the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. Ropemaker Properties Limited has made known its views on the Panel's findings by letter and through this web site, as a matter of general interest. The Panel's findings are currently being considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government and there is no formal process for making representations until Proposed Modifications are published later this year. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make any further comment on issues raised by the Panel at this time. A report by the group which oversees the government's Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) reveals that the growing threats to the environment include 'infrastructure development' and that a survey of 'lead partners' responsible for individual action plans revealed housing development was the number one threat to habitats. The report also says Government plans to build hundreds of thousands of new houses across Britain are a greater threat to the country's most at-risk species and habitats than climate change and a report this week on more than 500 of the most vulnerable plants, animals, birds and reptiles will admit that the majority are still declining or not recovering, 10 years after a national plan was launched to save them. Conservationists are also planning to add many more species to the list because they have slipped to dangerously low population levels, calling into question the government's key target to 'halt' biodiversity loss by the end of the decade. What is your reaction to this worrying report? The proposals for Harlow North would assist in the maintenance of existing and creation of new habitat. Where the scheme would give rise to a specific impact on protected species an Environmental Impact Assessment would set out an appropriate mitigation strategy. Local residents have suggested that your questioning of the enviornmental and hostoric value of Gilston Park is most offensive and will significantly damage relations with local residents. How do you intend to rectify the offense caused. (August 9th) Ropemaker has drawn attention to the fact that the landscape assessment failed to distinguish between the parkland setting associated with the residential properties at Gilston Park and Ropemaker's agricultural holding, which is known as the Gilston Park Estate, the latter being so denuded of parkland features its landscape value has been misclassified. The pictures in your prospectus, ?The sustainable growth of Harlow' show a marina with house boats and business barges around the Living Bridge. Are these still part of your proposals? The images that appear in the February 2006 prospectus ?The sustainable growth of Harlow', showing the ?living bridge' and other features proposed for the floodplain, are indicative and represent work in progress. We believe that there is excellent potential for a river street with moorings in this area but, as with all other aspects of this proposal, the principle, location and design of these features will need to be the subject of discussion and agreement with statutory agencies and bodies. A recent answer indicates a marina might be located in the gravel pits upstream of the living bridge. Your February prospectus indicates the marina would be around the living bridge. Which is correct and if you have changed your plans why? Do the Environment Agency still oppose your "Living Bridge" ? (Question posed July 11th 2006) The text of the prospectus, ?The sustainable growth of Harlow', states: "Existing gravel pits upstream of the main crossing can be reworked to accommodate a new marina for visiting by cruising narrow boats from the canal." These plans have not been changed in this regard. The Environment Agency's position on the proposed ?living bridge' remains as outlined in a previous answer on this website. You state: "Proposed discharges from local sewage treatment works are subject to detailed design and modelling exercises that have not yet been completed" As Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works is full, your scheme is dependent on your sewage treatment proposals working. How can you be pressing ahead when you haven't even modelled whether the ideas are pratical? Yo seemed to imply at the EiP that this issued had been solved it obviously has not!! It was recognised by Ropemaker Properties Ltd at an early stage that any substantial new development within or expansion of the existing urban area of Harlow in any direction would require commensurate provision of new infrastructure, including drainage and sewage treatment facilities. Accordingly RPL commissioned appropriate studies to examine the options and ensure the feasibility of providing local sewage treatment facilities to serve the Harlow North project, as a more sustainable alternative to a new trunk sewer to Ryemeads. These studies formed the basis for written submissions made to the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan. It is normal practice to stage work in this way and more detailed studies would be undertaken in due course. Rye Meads sewage works downstream of your proposed development is near capacity and will have to deal with the additional demand from the expansion at Stevenage. The discharge consents are likely to be tightened as there is ever reducing fesh water flow in the receiving rivers to dilute the outfall. If you capture rainfall upstream and ultimately discharge this water as treated effluent will that not further exacerbate the "dilution problem" for Rye Meads as ther will be even less fresh water in the Stort? What will the typical levels be for the following variables in the effluent from your local sewage treatment plants? BOD = Biological Oxygen Demand, (the oxygen being consumed by the wastewater) TSS = Total Suspended Solids (the level of solids suspended in the water) TKN = A measure of the nitrogen level in the water NH4 = Ammonia levels in the water NO3 = Levels of nitrate in the water. TP = Total phosphorous levels What will the average dilution factor be when discharged to the local streams (Volume of effluent to volume of natural flow from rainfall)? Proposed discharges from local sewage treatment works are subject to detailed design and modelling exercises that have not yet been completed. The discharge from any local treatment facilities at Harlow North would be subject to a consent issued by the Environment Agency; the role of the Environment Agency being to ensure there will be no adverse effect on the receiving watercourses. You say that "The Gilston Park Estate was purchased by the BP Pension Fund along with other agricultural holdings almost 30 years ago, with the objective at that time of establishing a weighting in the agricultural investment sector of the property market." and BP has stated that "As part of its continuing drive to find longer term commercial alternatives to oil and gas, BP is to fund radical research aimed at probing the emerging secrets of bioscience and applying them to the production of new and cleaner energy, principally fuels for road transport". If your parent company believes there is a great future for biofuels then why do you propose to concrete over so much agricultural land? Ropemaker Properties Limited recognises the potential of alternative renewable sources of energy. The land holding of RPL occupies a strategic location next to an existing town, where there is an opportunity to create a sustainable urban extension. Part of this vision envisages that the ecological diversity can be improved; an agricultural regime geared to the production of biofuels would not necessarily assist with this objective in this location. How will building a marina around your proposed Living Bridge affect the existing flora and fauna on the floodplan? I presume all the non aquatic animals and plants will be destroyed? The proposals for the ?living bridge' could include reworking existing gravel pits upstream of the main crossing to accommodate a new marina for visiting by cruising narrow boats from the canal. If such a proposal were progressed, ecological features of importance would be maintained. Several areas of the floodplain, including the existing semi-natural grasslands, fen and swamp areas, could be retained and enhanced by improved management with the overall intention to effect an overall improvement in non-aquatic biodiversity and habitats. In a previous question about wind turbines you were asked : "Have you checked this plan with BAA since I understand turbines generate electromagnetic interference and consequently would not be allowed on the flight path into Stansted" You have not responded to this point. Could you do so now? This point was not responded to at the time since it was part of a question which referred to an indicative illustration that showed wind turbines in a location which, as was stated clearly in our answer at the time, is not a proposed location for wind turbines at this stage. As we have previously stated, we are considering options for wind power as part of an energy strategy for Harlow North. A detailed feasibility study, which would include consultation with the BAA, would be required for any onsite wind turbines. The Harlow Green Infrastructure Plan says there is a good population of great crested newts in the land affected by your proposals. What mitigation plan do you have to protect this species? Any newt population affected by Ropemaker's proposals will be fully considered through the Environmental Statement for the Harlow North project. The effects of the proposals will be assessed against all relevant legislation, policy and guidance, and appropriate mitigation will be proposed. In a previous answer you state you will not be having wind turbines in the Stort valley. Are they proposed elswhere? Options for wind power including small domestic scale and possibly medium scale wind turbines onsite, as well as larger scale offsite, are currently being investigated as part of ongoing work on the energy strategy for Harlow North. Can you explain how harvesting rainfall and SUDs will impact the replenishment of groundwater supplies through out the year? Water that would have previously added to groundwater supplies would be used, under your proposals, in homes and then dicharged after treatment directly to watercourses. How will this affect users you rely on groundwater supplies? The principal objective of a Sustainable Drainage Strategy is to mimic the natural regime as far as practicable. In some cases there will be an opportunity to improve the water regime by balancing water flows between water courses and recharge of groundwater through appropriate design measures that retain storm water for a temporary period, e.g. introduction of permeable hard surfaces, swales and other water storage proposals. The policy of the Environment Agency is to ensure there is no deterioration in the quality of watercourses. The proposals for Harlow North would need to demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects on local water courses, and if possible, that flow regimes and recharging of ground water will be improved as a consequence of better water management. What is your reaction to this letter in the Daily Telegraph June 8th 2006 "Plan water needs before building homes Sir - We strongly endorse calls by the House of Lords science and technology committee for a new approach to water supply planning in housing growth areas (News, June 6). The Royal Town Planning Institute, which represents Britain's 20,000 planning professionals, wants to see immediate action to tackle the growing water needs in the South-East. A plan must be prepared with urgency to help the Government, councils, water companies and communities to provide responsibly for our future water needs. Without such a plan, we face the prospect of paying too much for water and of causing significant environmental damage due to the construction of unacceptable projects. Lacking the water to supply even our basic needs in future droughts is also a distinct possibility. Before we decide where up to one million new homes are to be built in the South-East, we need to know that we can meet current demand. We need to know where the water to serve future needs will come from. We also need to know that it can be obtained using economic means that do not cause unacceptable levels of environmental harm. Rynd Smith, Head of Policy and Practice, Royal Town Planning Institute, London EC3" Ropemaker Properties Limited recognises the need to ensure that water can be supplied to new and existing homes using means that are environmentally and economically sustainable. This is one of the most fundamental principles of the water strategy which is currently being developed for Harlow North. Ropemaker has worked closely with the local water company in preparing the water strategy and has been assured that with Ropemaker's plans for high levels of water efficiency, together with the water company's plans to develop the water resource provision for the region, the water company will be able to supply the development with an adequate supply of potable water. Ropemaker proposes water efficiency measures that go beyond targets identified by the Environment Agency as sustainable for new developments in the East of England. In a response to the Panel on water issues you urged some urgency on completing the necessary water cycle studies. Are you disappointed that 3 months later (end May 2006) no substantive progress has been made according to advice we have received from GO-East? We are still of the opinion that the Environment Agency and the relevant water companies should carry out necessary water cycle studies in a timely manner to avoid potential delays to the planning process. English Nature have told me that: "Increased discharge of treated sewage effluent into the Stort (and subsequently the Lee) is a general environmental concern" "Suitable water quantity and quality are necessary for the management of Hunsdon Mead SSSI" How to you react to these barriers to your proposals going ahead? Ropemaker Properties Limited does not regard these statements as "barriers" to our proposals. They represent issues that will need to be addressed through the detailed design of the project. As has already been outlined here and in our recent prospectus document, matters of water quality and flow levels would be addressed through the implementation of sustainable technologies that comply with the relevant environmental standards. How many acres of new woodland will you be planting at the 10,000 and 25,000 homes scale of development? The proposals for Harlow North, as illustrated in the current document 'The sustainable growth of Harlow', contain suggestions for substantial areas of new woodland within the scheme. These are indicative at this stage, subject to review and detailed design, and no precise figures for the areas involved are available. At the Examination in Public on the draft East of England Plan the Environment Agency's Debbie Jones stated "Moving on to the sewage issue, the sewage treatment issue, Rye Mead as we mentioned before, presently serves a very large area which includes Stevenage and Harlow. The scale of the development that is proposed across the catchment will almost certainly require higher standards of treatment and just to explain that, and the comment that you made, is that if you increase the loading on the STWs the available dilution in the water course is less therefore the technology to meet the standards has to be that much higher. What we're saying is that with the proposed population growth, the technology is not available to meet the standards beyond that which it can meet at the moment. And I have to say that Rye Mead is an exceptionally highly developed and highly efficient sewage works at the moment" Thames Water's Mark Dickenson stated "The growth in Harlow alone is an increase of 25% or 50,000 population equivalent on the works. Rye Meads STW is located at the headwaters of a sensitive river. Most of the river is made up of what we discharge from the STW therefore further growth will inevitably results in a reduction of the treatment limits." How does treating sewage within your proposed development solve the problem of the absolute limits of the biological loading the sensitive rivers downstream can absorb? Can you estimate the total additional Biological Oxygen Demand you will place on the river systems at levels of 10,000 and 25,000 houses? Proposed discharges from local sewage treatment works are subject to detailed design and modelling exercises that have not yet been completed. The discharge from any local treatment facilities at Harlow North would be subject to a consent issued by the Environment Agency; the role of the Environment Agency being to ensure there will be no adverse effect on the receiving watercourses. However by spreading the discharge points over a much wider area rather than concentrating them in one place (i.e. Rye Meads), then there is more opportunity for further reduction of parameters such as BOD in the receiving waters. A recent Guardian article (May 17th) about BedZed highlight that residents "believed they would be at the forefront of an eco-friendly existence - then things started to go wrong." "The biomass-fuelled system providing zero-carbon heat and electricity to 100 homes finally packed up early last year, forcing BedZed to draw its electricity entirely from the National Grid." "Its Living Machine, which uses reed beds to filter sewage water for use in toilets and gardens - has been out of operation for the past seven months." "The project was over-ambitious, using untested technology and a complicated wastewater treatment system that were not economic to run" "Most people who come to BedZed haven't given up their cars, and they aren't eating local food," Why will Harlow North fair any better? The article in question (http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,,1776166,00.html) highlights both what has been achieved by BedZed since it opened four years ago, and some of the challenges which that development has faced in bringing forward an innovative scheme. Ropemaker Properties Ltd has set a wide ranging brief to its consultants to learn from what has been done already, both successfully and unsuccessfully, in terms of creating new places to live and work. The work that has been done and is underway in planning Harlow North will ensure that all technologies used are understood and proven before they are employed. What makes your environment policies for Harlow North unique to this site? Couldn't and shouldn't any and all major housing developments incorporate your strategies for waste recycling and reuse, water conservation and the use of green spaces? Why is your land holding so unique in this regard. Ropemaker Properties Limited agrees that all major developments should ideally incorporate sustainable strategies for waste recycling and reuse, water conservation and the use of green spaces. However to date we are not aware of any completed or planned developments of a comparable scale that meet the standards outlined in our prospectus ?The sustainable growth of Harlow'. Will your combined heat and power incinerator be self sufficient from energy sources within Harlow North or will you have to import fuel e.g. wood chip? Previous answers imply you will be importing bulky low energy density biomass materials to gasify or burn directly? Obviously the idea of a power station and the importing of lorries loads of waste is of great concern to the local communties? How will residues from the gasifying process be disposed of and how toxic are they? The question links a number of separate issues and terms in an inappropriate way. Ropemaker Properties Ltd has indicated in previous answers that it is currently considering alternative ways in which energy might be produced from renewable sources to serve the scheme. The issue of what infrastructure would need to be put in place to secure the more sustainable management of domestic and industrial waste streams arising from the development is also being considered. No specific proposals have been made at this time. If and when Ropemaker Properties Ltd was to prepare and submit a planning application any specific proposals would be the subject of a process of environmental impact assessment. The planning advisors to Ropemaker Properties Ltd note that under EU directives biomass is not to be regarded as a 'waste'. You mention your energy and waste strategies will be developed in discussion with the local authorities. Have you started these discussions or do you imagine they will be held after you make a planning application? It is envisaged that discussions would take place with statutory authorities if and when Ropemaker Properties Limited decides to prepare and submit a planning application, in which case these discussion would be likely to precede the submission of the planning application. The TCPA "Sustainable Energy by Design" guide suggests the first step in creating a sustainable energy plan is "Involve stakeholders" including elected members and communities. How have you involved local stakeholders in the development of your yet unpublished energy plan? Have you guaged local opinion over the inclusion of what appears to be a waste incinerator incorporating heat recovery processing household, commercial and industrial solid waste at Harlow North. Have you identified a local source of sustainable fuel for your combined heat and power incinerator? How far is this source from Harlow? Have you discussed your proposals for an incinerator incorporating combined heat and power technology with the Environment agency? It is inaccurate to talk about "our" combined heat and power "incinerator", as Ropemaker Properties Limited has not proposed one: gasification of waste streams, one of the methods being investigated, is a different process from incineration. Moreover, as has been previously stated, Ropemaker Properties Limited has made no decision concerning the form of management of waste streams arising from the Harlow North scheme. As has also been stated, the energy and waste strategies for Harlow North (including the issue of potential supply chains) are still subject to the completion of ongoing studies and discussion with local authorities. Any strategy and proposals that formed part of a planning application would be the subject of discussion with statutory bodies including the Environment Agency, local interest groups and the public generally. Have you conducted your own independent bats surveys over and above the work done by Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre and the Hertfordshire & Middlesex Bat Group? Have you shared the results with any "primary consultees"? If so who? Yes, Ropemaker Properties Limited has commissioned independent bats surveys. English Nature is a statutory consultee on any planning application submitted in relation to the proposed Harlow North development, and would comment on any issues connected to bats. Detailed information about impact on local wildlife, including site- and species-specific field surveys, results of data collation exercises and mitigation proposals would be submitted at planning application stage. English Nature would be consulted on any mitigation strategies produced. As noted previously, development which may potentially affect known bat roosts would be subject to a legal requirement for the work to be carried out under license from DEFRA and a mitigation plan would have to be produced as a part of information required to obtain the license. You have mentioned that your sewage treatment plants would provide more consistent flow in the local streams. Our calculations show the flow in the local streams could increase by a factor of over ten at 25,000 homes level. Why is it desirable to turn local streams and brooks into fast flowing rivers year round sourced from sewage effluent outfall? Surely it is more sustainable to reduce water abstraction and allow the natural environment to recovery rather than artifically boost flows to abnormal levels which would change the whole nature and character of the streams? The overall wastewater treatment strategy for Harlow North is currently being developed. One of the objectives of the strategy will be to ensure no detriment to and improvement of the condition of the local watercourses. There are several examples in England where the Environment Agency has introduced schemes to augment flows in rivers during the summer e.g. the River Darent in Kent. It is believed that streams with water flows throughout the year will provide for a more diverse flora and fauna population than is the case now. Could you explain more fully what data you presented to the Environment Agency on bats north of Harlow? Was it simply your own surveys? As the Environment Agency is not the primary consultee on bat issues, no bat data has been formally presented to them. The Harlow Green Infrastructure Plan stresses the " Desirability of retaining the rural character of largely undeveloped/open countryside to the north of the Stort Valley, and avoiding an increased sense of urbanisation through erosion of individual identity of rural settlements and their dispersed pattern within the landscape." Why do you welcome the Plan when you want to do exactly the opposite by urbanising thousands of acres? The landscape advisors to Ropemaker Properties Limited comment that the Green Infrastructure Plan (GIP) is valuable, as the proposals for linked green spaces based on existing features north of Harlow are complementary to and reinforce the proposed public open space strategy in the draft masterplan for Harlow North. The biodiversity enhancement and public access proposals are also welcomed as being complementary to the Harlow North proposals. It should be noted that the GIP was prepared in the absence of any specific proposals for land north of Harlow and it is recognised that some aspects of the GIP recreation strategy north of Harlow would be modified in the context of the details of a ?Greater Harlow Northern Extension'. For example, the proposed ?Gateway' for those approaching on foot from the north could be created in the proposed new public Forest Park rather than associated with the private Gilston Park. The advisors do not agree with all the GIP's observations regarding landscape issues relating to future development. The Harlow Green Infrastructure Plan for Harlow, which you welcome sees a key opportunity as "Undeveloped, hidden and ?green' character of Stort Valley maintained by avoiding development within the floodplain.". How does your living bridge development across and within the floodplain fit with this ideas? The landscape advisors to Ropemaker Properties Limited comment that the generalisation in the Green Infrastructure Plan about the character of the Stort Valley is not applicable to the setting of the proposed ?living bridge'. Whilst they agree that some parts of the Stort Valley are secluded (and almost all are 'green'), the location of the ?living bridge' is currently dominated by a busy A road on an embankment, with open views out on both sides, and the crossing is brightly lit with orange low-pressure sodium lights at night. Bordering the open land to the east of the ?living bridge' location are a number of commercial uses including two public houses, one with a large car park. One of the main opportunities for safeguarding, enhancing and extending the key assets within the northern fringe of Harlow as set out in the Green Infrastructure Plan are the visually significant slopes between Gilston and High Wych that are part of the setting of Harlow and its visual containment to the north. Do you intend to safeguard these slopes or build on them? How is the Green Infrastructure Plan similar to your proposals in this regard? The landscape advisors to Ropemaker Properties Limited comment that they do not share the assessment of the Green Infrastructure Plan in respect of the visual significance of the slopes between Gilston and High Wych. Although these slopes offer open views to the north, there are few external public viewpoints where they can be seen. It should be noted that the current footprint of Ropemaker's proposals for a northern extension to Harlow does not impinge on the southernmost of the two south-facing slopes between Gilston and High Wych (largely south of Redricks Lane) and only occupies part of the northern slope, north of High Wych Road; therefore, irrespective of the difference of opinion on their visual significance, the proposed scheme for Harlow North largely retains these slopes as open land. You claim that "the proposed treatment plants would discharge upstream of the Hunsdon Meads SSSI. The water entering the watercourses will be of a high quality, and we do not anticipate that the discharges will have any adverse effect on the ecology of the watercourses or Hunsdon Meads" Have English Nature (who must authorise any change in operation that could damage the special interest) given their endorsement to your plan - and, if not, is it not remiss of you to have failed to consult them? English Nature and the Environment Agency would be statutory consultees in respect of any planning application submitted in relation to the proposed Harlow North scheme. Their views would be taken into account by the planning authority before reaching a decision on any proposals. It would be normal practice to consult such organizations as and when an Environmental Assessment is prepared. Both organizations would need to be satisfied that discharges to watercourses from the proposed development would not prejudice the long term integrity of nature conservations' interests, particularly those sites with statutory protection. According to the Hertfordshire Local Transport Plan traffic flows in the county are 35% above national averages and traffic growth in the region, county and district of East Herts are predicted to rise by 34%, 31% and 57% respectively by 202. Is it sensible to bring 10- 25,00 new homes or over 30,000 cars into this environment? The draft East of England Plan contains a comprehensive set of proposals to improve the transport infrastructure in the general vicinity of Harlow. This includes rail capacity enhancements, a Harlow northern bypass, park and ride facilities, high quality public transport route, public transport access improvements, improvements to the A1184 and improvements to junctions 7 and 8 of the M11. These improvements are intended in part to address existing infrastructure issues as well as additional needs for movement arising from the anticipated general growth in traffic and from development associated with the redevelopment and growth of Harlow. Explanatory text further indicates that the details of transportation infrastructure improvements will be informed by further studies. The timing of the provision of these improvements will be the responsibility of the appropriate statutory body. The proposals for 'Greater Harlow' will need to be developed in conjunction with these infrastructure improvements in accordance with a programme established by the selected delivery vehicle(s). In your March 2005 newsletter you staed" Partners at Environs Partnership are currently preparing an Environmental Statement for Harlow North, which will describe the detailed studies being carried out into the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development". Can you publish this enviromental statement as you have obviously started work on the detailed studies? For a scheme of the nature and scale of an urban extension to the north of Harlow, planning regulations would require the submission of an Environmental Assessment to accompany any planning application. There are a number of elements to an environmental impact assessment: the collection of base line data describing the existing situation, an analysis of the actual and potential effects of the development upon the environment, and proposed mitigation measures to minimise those impacts. Work on data collection and scheme design is ongoing and no Environmental Statement has been prepared to date. If and when Ropemaker Properties Ltd decides to submit a planning application, an Environmental Statement would form part of the supporting documentation. In advance of such decision it is considered that the partial release of elements of information has the potential to be misunderstood or give a misleading impression of the implications of a major project. There have been recent reports of the river Rib near Buntingford drying up. If you harvest rainwater won't situations like this occur more often in the streams north of Harlow? It is inappropriate to focus on one particular aspect of the water management regime. The drainage proposals for Harlow North will encompass a wide range of measures to manage water flows in local watercourses and recharge of groundwater supplies. Measures currently being investigated include separate systems for potable and non-potable water supply, recycling of water resources, Sustainable Drainage Systems, rainwater harvesting, and detailed specifications for domestic and industrial goods that use water to minimise water consumption. The policy of the Environment Agency is to ensure there is no deterioration in the quality of watercourses. The proposals for Harlow North would need to demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects on local water courses, and if possible, that flow regimes and recharging of ground water will be improved as a consequence of better water management. In Nov 2004 you said you were "investigating the feasibility of replacing the existing overhead high voltage power line with an underground alternative.". April 2006 you say you will only comply with planning requirements. Are you backtracking on your previous comments to the communityabout burying the power lines and why? Did the feasibility study show it was too costly? Why did you not inform the local community of the outcome of this feasibility study? There are a number of options for addressing the overhead lines within the site - no decision has yet been reached on the strategy that will be adopted, but all would need to comply with planning and other requirements. Any proposals in respect of the overhead lines would form part of any planning application and would be supported with an appropriate technical appraisal. Alison Washbrook, of Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, has issued a bleak warning that the water vole, which makes its home around the waterways of Hertfordshire, faced extinction. How will you plans affect our local water vole population? Any water vole population affected by Ropemaker's proposals will be fully considered in the Environmental Statement for Harlow North, and impacts of the proposals will be assessed against all relevant legislation, policy and guidance. What is your response to the Green Infrastructure Plan for Harlow? Ropemaker Properties Limited welcomes the Green Infrastructure Plan for Harlow, which is a useful contribution to identifying areas where there is potential to improve and extend environmental assets. We note that much of the strategy and many of the proposals put forward in the GIP are similar to those contained in the RPL proposals for Harlow North. Can you expalin why locally based sewage treatment is to be preferred on environmental and sustainability grounds when compared to treatment at Rye Meads which is one of the most technologically advanced treatment plants in the UK? The proposed local catchment-based sewage treatment works would have a number of advantages. They would provide an additional flow to local water courses, and a valuable source of non-potable water for use on the development. There would be operational flexibility through the construction period, and local infrastructure would be more able to cope with dispersed phased growth throughout the 750 hectare site over the 10-15 year construction period. There is some debate as to whether providing mechanisms to burn waste streams, as in your heat and power incinerator, crowds out recycling as the plant demands a certain mix of fuel. How will you mitigate such a risk? Ropemaker Properties Limited has made no decision concerning the form of management of waste streams arising from the Harlow North scheme. Government waste policies set out a clear hierarchy for managing waste streams - reduction of waste at source, reuse, recycling and composting, energy recovery, disposal. These policies find expression in the policies of Hertfordshire and Essex County Councils. Any proposals for waste disposal facilities would need to demonstrate compliance with this hierarchy. It is our understanding that it is the variability of general waste streams that can give rise to problems for energy conversion plants rather than the streaming of waste into its components. "Homes should not be built near overhead power lines because of possible links with childhood leukaemia" say Government-appointed experts. Isn't there an overhead power line right through the middle of your land holding? Will you remove it and at what cost? There are existing overhead power lines located on land to the north of Harlow. Any development scheme will need to comply with relevant planning requirements in relation to siting of homes and other buildings in the vicinity of overhead lines. In Dec 2004 you stated: "A range of environmental studies have been commissioned; not all are complete and the overall analysis will take some months to conclude. We will endeavour to publish these in an accessible form for the Enquiry in Public for the East of England Plan." The EiP is now complete but your studies have not been published nearly a year and a half after you gave this commitment. Why? Environmental studies carried out since December 2004 has found expression, as far as is relevant to the particular forum, in published work such as the submission by Ropemaker Properties Limited to the draft East of England Plan ?Land to the north of Harlow: an opportunity to realise regeneration and sustainable development' (2005), and the prospectus ?The sustainable growth of Harlow: A proposal for a sustainable urban extension that builds on the pioneering spirit of Harlow New Town' (2006). Other studies are still ongoing, and in some cases will not be completed until after the Examination in Public Panel has reported on the draft East of England Plan. How would the biomass fuel be delivered to you combined heat and power incinerator? As there is no rail link I presume a large number of lorries will be needed? Ropemaker Properties Limited is currently considering a range of options for handling waste streams using more sustainable approaches and technologies than current methods. Some of these processes have the potential to form part of an electricity-generating plant or Combined Heat & Power plant. As far as possible, fuel for such a plant would be sourced locally to reduce transport costs and impacts. However the matter of the supply chain for biomass-fuelled energy production is an issue that will form part of ongoing studies that will inform an energy strategy for the Harlow North project. These studies have not yet been completed, and so we cannot comment further at this stage. If you expect to develop the scheme regardless of whether or not there is expansion at Stansted can we assume your employment projections are robust and sustainable if all potential additional employment at Stansted is ignored? I.e Stansted employment is not part of the justification of your scheme. The projections for future employment growth in the Stansted/M11 sub-region assume expansion of Stansted up to the capacity of a single runway, but make no allowance for the additional employment that would be generated from a second runway. The draft East of England Plan identifies a wide range of potential opportunities to expand and diversify the employment base at Harlow, including the following employment sectors: university level and research-based institutions; location of European Headquarters; regional offices; media and culture; biotechnology; pharmaceuticals; information technology; logistics as well as airport-related activities. Your prospectus make great play of reducing CO2 emissions and energy use at Harlow North but you then state "we would expect the area to be able to take advantage of employment generation arising from expansion of operations at Stansted". Surely the expansion at Stansted would wipeout many times over your CO2 and energy savings. Do you see any ethical conflict in promoting a supposedly sustainable community by taking advantage of employment in unsustainable growth in air transport ? We are striving to ensure that all matters relating to the Harlow North development within our control contribute towards exemplary sustainable development status. Expansion of operations at Stansted is clearly a matter that we have no control over. We do not perceive any ethical conflict as we expect to develop the scheme regardless of whether or not there is expansion at Stansted. Ken Livingstone has recently announced plans to build Britain's biggest eco-development in east London. The London scheme will involve at least 1,000 homes, which will be powered entirely by renewable energy sources such as photovoltaic panels, wind turbines and the burning of waste. A spokesman is quoted in the Guardian as saying "The idea is to demonstrate that a zero-carbon development can be a viable commercial proposition." If Ken Livingstone still wants see if this approach is commercial viable why are you so confident that your proposals can be delivered at 10,000 home scale? Or are you not proposing a zero-carbon development simply close to a one planet development? Ropemaker Properties Ltd seeks to promote an exemplary urban extension to Harlow that will employ best practice in all fields of securing a more sustainable pattern of development. Engineering and other studies to identify appropriate and feasible approaches and technologies will be undertaken to inform this objective. The results of these studies would form part of any planning application submitted in connection with the scheme. On the 20th October the European Court of Justice (EJC) ruled that the UK has failed to adequately transpose the provisions of Article 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive) into United Kingdom law. GO-East have been advised that the ECJ decision means that Article 6(3) of the Directive has direct effect, and so there is now a requirement for the draft East of England Plan to comply with the provisions of the Directive before the RSS is adopted. The Lee Valley is a RAMSAR site directly affect by your proposals, especially the treatment of waste water. Have you conducted the appropriate assessments and if so what were the results? The planning advisors to Ropemaker Properties Ltd advise that to date, no indication has been given by the relevant planning authorities that the proposals for 'Greater Harlow', including Harlow North, would require such "appropriate assessments". They further advise that an "appropriate assessment'" would be undertaken by the Competent Authority, in this case the local planning authority, as defined in Regulation 6(1) of the Habitats Regulation, and in this case it would be normal practice to undertake the assessment in conjunction with their determination of any planning application. The Competent Authority would require the applicant of any planning application to provide the information that the Authority may reasonably require for the purposes of making the assessment (Reg.48(2)). Do you have a view on the expansion of Stansted as a provider of jobs to suport your housing proposals or from its environmental impact? A number of studies undertaken in connection with the preparation of the draft East of England Plan have pointed to the significant anticipated employment generation from the expansion of activities from the greater use of the existing runway. This employment generation would be much greater in the event that planning permission were to be obtained for a second runway, however, the draft East of England Plan took no account of this further potential employment. The decision whether or not to grant planning permission for the second runway will be the responsibility of the ODPM. The strategy of the draft Plan is to 'capitalise on growth in economic activity generated by Stansted Airport to stimulate economic economic regeneration in the areas south of the airport'. Harlow is designated as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration and a growth point in the East of England region and we would expect the area to be able to take advantage of employment generation arising from expansion of operations at Stansted. I notice you exhibited at the nternational Solar Cities Congress 2006. What did you learn that could be applied to your proposals for Harlow North? Ropemaker Properties Ltd and Beyond Green exhibited at this event, and Beyond Green directors chaired the conference session "Masterplanning for Low Carbon Cities" and gave a presentation entitled "Doing things differently - low carbon outcomes in city strategy, planning and design". The event was attended by representatives from a large number of cities and countries, and as such it was useful to learn more about the latest international developments in zero-emission technology and construction, and how they could be incorporated into development projects. More information is available at http://www.oxfordcrm.co.uk/ Hunsdon Mead SSSI is of vital importance as the only meadow of its kind left in Hertfordshire. The 50 YEAR VISION FOR THE WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS OF HERTFORDSHIRE (A Local Biodiversity Action Plan) recommends the long-term solution to ensure their survival involves decreasing pollution levels in the Stort navigation and then allowing flooding to re-occur. How does discharging sewage effluent upstream fit with this solution? Water discharged from local treatment systems at Harlow North would be treated to a high standard of quality, and would not affect the proposals in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan. In recent answers about bats north of Harlow you indicated that by telling the Environment Agency that there was some evidence of bats north of Harlow that the project team gave a fair and accurate summary of the work on bat population that had been done at that point. In another answer you said you have consulted with both the Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre and the Hertfordshire & Middlesex Bat Group regarding relevant information they hold on bats. This group submitted evidence to the public consultation on the draft east of England Plan that in the summer of 2004 a survey was carried out of various 10km squares of Hertfordshire to determine bat populations, and the square to the north of Harlow and west (correction from original submission quoting "east") of the M11 was the one in which we found the most bats. You also state you are not aware whether the Environment Agency is aware of this data. If you were aware of the bats group work and provided the Environment Agency with a fair and accurate picture why are you unsure whether the Environment Agency knew about the survey work quoted above? Could you explain more fully what data you presented to the Environment Agency on bats? Was it simply your own separate surveys and not the complete data set including the surveys mentioned above? If so will you be clarifying the data with the Agency without delay? Our biodiversity advisor notes that usual practice in such circumstances is to liaise with Local Records Centres or equivalent, Bat Groups and possibly Wildlife Trusts about local bat activity. We suggest that questions about the EA's knowledge and understanding of particular data on this subject can be best answered by the EA themselves, and advise that you should direct specific queries to them. Did the Harlow North team or a delegate raise the problem of sewage treatment at the sustainability forum? If the Team when were you first aware of the issue and from whom? From the early stages of the project we have always been aware that there are two basic alternative approaches: to pipe effluent to an expanded Rye Meads facility or to undertake local treatment. Ropemaker Properties Limited considers that the option of locally based treatment is to be preferred on environmental and sustainability grounds. What did Rowan Wilson from Beyond Green learn form the Hertfordshire Environmental Forum Annual Conference 2006 what was of interest to you proposals? Rowan Wilson attended this event on behalf of a different project on which Beyond Green are working, not on behalf of Ropemaker Properties Limited. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) are currently applying the well-established BRE sustainability checklist to the indicative masterplan and designs for Harlow North. Where can we view the plans and designs they are studying or are they secret? The Building Research Establishment will be applying a version of their sustainability checklist to the project plans, in order to ensure an independent assessment of the plans' sustainability credentials. This will be an internal exercise. At present the BRE have not been given any additional information about the project for the purposes of this appraisal other than that which we have published. You say that "There are a range of technologies being considered for local [sewage] treatment at Harlow North, all of which are technically feasible" Best current thinking on local sewage treatment is use of specialist reed beds, for which "the area of plants required for waste treatment is typically 1-2 m2/person equivalent" (http://www.fujitaresearch.com/reports/wetlands.html). So a satellite town of 60,000 people you would an area of 90,000 m2. Where would this 300m x 300m bed go?. How would you deal with the solid content of sewage after settling? The technology being considered for Harlow North is not a reed bed, but a more compact form of natural wastewater treatment system. Wastewater treatment systems typically involve a trade-off between energy and physical area. A reed bed is a passive treatment system, which requires a large land area. By combining modest amounts of energy for aeration with ecologically engineered natural treatment technology, the area required is reduced by an order of magnitude (ten times). Residues from the process might be used in a number of ways, for soil conditioning, composting, vermiculture, or energy recovery dependent on the outcome of more detailed technical studies. Could you describe your understanding of the ecology of the Hunsdon Meads and how it is sustained and renewed by the natural water run-off from the valley slopes? I believe there has been some extensive work on this in the past by Hertfordshire County Council when it was designated a SSSI The ecology advisors to Ropemaker Properties Limited have reviewed data on Hunsdon SSSI, including the SSSI citation, and have an understanding of the value of the site in the context of the Stort Valley. The hydrological regime is one of a number of factors that contribute to the maintenance of ecological interest of this site. The site is subject to occasional winter flooding, resulting in areas of standing water for a period of time because of the soil type and topography. These wetter areas increase habitat diversity and the range of plant species supported by the site. There are areas of the site that are damp throughout the year as a result of the combination of soil type the level of the water table and topography. These areas support a flora characteristic of wet grassland. Any development north of the river Stort or works within the river valley would need to demonstrate no detriment to Hunsdon SSSI. If you are building a combined heat and power plant could it incinerate household waste that cannot be recyled? I believe your representative at the EiP stated that sewage sludge might be burnt. This is not listed in a previous answer as a fuel in your CHP plant. Can you clarify? If you burnt sewage sludge for energy recovery on site would you need certain licences and permits to operate such plant? How would it be regulated? Ropemaker Properties Limited is currently considering a range of options for handling waste streams using more sustainable approaches and technologies than current methods. Some of these processes have the potential to form part of an electricity-generating plant or Combined Heat & Power plant. The majority of these processes are likely to require authorisation under Integrated Pollution Prevention Control as well as planning permission. Consents under IPPC are routinely subject to operating requirements that require the facility to comply with relevant national health and safety standards. Did you study sewage treatment at the EiP in Feb 2004 and what solutions evolved from that exercise? Local sewage treatment works did not feature in your August 2004 brochure. The issue of the drainage strategy for the project was not discussed explicitly at the February 2004 Enquiry by Design (to which we assume you refer), but was an issue discussed at the Sustainability Symposia in June 2005. At your meeting with the Environment Agency in November 2005 you state there is "Some evidence that bats are present". Have you provided the Agency with the complete picture of the bat population in the area and pointed them to the work of others that indicates your landholdings have one of the largest populations of bats in the whole of Hertfordshire? There is more than some evidence it is overwhelming! At the meeting with the Environment Agency, representatives from the project team gave a fair and accurate summary of the work on bat population that had been done at that point. We will continue to do so in any future dialogue with the EA. How does the European Directive on ground nesting birds affect your proposals? The Conservation of Wild Birds Directive (Birds Directive) per se, does not prohibit building in a rural landscape. The directive sets out the means to protect, manage and control bird species. The provisions of the directive ensure that the most vulnerable birds, at a European level, remain in favourable conservation status. During the development of the scheme proposals for Harlow North the provisions of the Birds Directive have been taken into account, as has been the case with all other relevant environmental legislation, policy and guidance. In the Environmental Statement, which will be submitted with the planning application, the impacts of the proposals will be assessed against this legislation, policy and guidance, including the Birds Directive. Ropemaker project co-ordinator Chris Knight said the bird study (details of which were recently announced on this Q&A) was part of a wider package of ecological and archaeological assessments. Why have you not released the data on all these studies at this time? What unpublished data exists that is not available to inform the public and Panel during the EiP? Will you be informing the EiP of the results of your birds surveys? If not why not? The Examination in Public process is not concerned with site-specific matters, but rather the strategic principles underlying the proposed planning strategy. Accordingly, it would have been inappropriate to submit detailed data, had it been available, relating to specific sites. It is our understanding that further material may not be submitted at this time to the Examination in Public for legal process reasons. All environmental studies are ongoing and it is considered inappropriate to release data in a partial or incomplete form at this time. Can you provide a summary of the modelling work you have done on the watercourses affected by your proposals? The results relating to water quality and flow will be of most interest bearing in mind your proposals to direct the discharge from your local sewage works into the local rivers. Modelling work is ongoing and will be made available as part of the supporting material for any planning application, together with a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the River Stort and the tributaries that run through the proposed development site. Water quality monitoring has also been undertaken at various locations around the site to establish the baseline ecological status of the River Stort and tributaries. Major revisions to the planning system in England look set to bring about important changes in the way the planning system deals with development and flood risk. The government is producing a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS25) on ?Development and Flood Risk', and is consulting on proposals to make the Environment Agency a statutory consultee in relation to planning applications where there is a risk of flood. Do you support this approach? Are you proposing any devlopment in the river Stort floodplain? If so have you had discussions with the Environment Agency and what was the outcome? What is the Enviornment Agency's position on your proposal for a "living bridge"? Do they support or object to it? Ropemaker Properties Limited considers that the present draft PPS25 is unhelpful, in that it leaves unresolved many issues concerning the technical basis for flood risk assessment and procedural aspects, including the role of the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee. The project team has had discussions with the EA about our proposals, which do include some development in the floodplain of the River Stort. At present the EA does not feel able to support the ?living bridge' proposal. Both the EA and the Harlow North project team have agreed that we should continue to work together to develop a proposal that will be an exemplary sustainable development. At the EiP you stated that you had been aware of the capacity problem at Rye Meads sewage treatment works for some time. Who made you aware and when and with who else have you discussed the problems ( e.g Harlow Council) and when? At the Examination in Public, the representative for Ropemaker Properties Limited acknowledged that there were foul water infrastructure capacity issues that would need to be addressed in connection with further development at Harlow due to existing foul sewer capacity constraints. Prior to the EiP, RPL was not aware of the suggested water quality issues downstream of Rye Meads in the event of the possible expansion of that facility. RPL does not consider enlargement of the existing Rye Meads facility to be the only option available to address the issue of sewage treatment. RPL has examined the options in relation to the Harlow North scheme and concluded that small-scale, locally based treatment facilities would provide considerable sustainability benefits by avoiding the need to construct a new mains sewer. This approach would help to maintain or enhance water flows in local water courses, many of which presently suffer from reduced flow rates, and would result in reduced water usage. RPL welcomes the undertaking by the Environment Agency to carry out a Water Cycle Study that will consider the issues of water supply, foul drainage and treatment and flooding in a holistic way. How many tonnes of fuel and from what distance would you need to transport it to run your combined heat and power plant? We are used to talking about food miles perhaps you can give us an idea on fuel miles? The matter of the supply chain for biomass-fuelled energy production is an issue that will form part of ongoing studies that will inform an energy strategy for the Harlow North project. These studies have not yet been completed, and so we cannot comment further at this stage. How can you claim to want to conserve and even enhance the best aspects of the surrounding countryside when you want to build on thousands of acres of green fields? As has previously been stated on this website and is widely acknowledged elsewhere, the scale of development needs in the south east, and the Stansted/M11 corridor in particular, are such that both brownfield and greenfield land will be required to accommodate the resulting housing, employment etc. Due to the need to ensure new development is well related to existing communications links, some release of land from the Green Belt is inevitable to ensure a sustainable pattern of development is achieved. Extensive areas of ecologically rich open space will be incorporated in the emerging plans for Harlow North, and these will be managed to enhance the overall biodiversity of the area compared to its current condition, and to provide much improved public access and amenity. The existing areas of most significant ecological value include the fen and floodplain meadows around the River Stort, and the ancient woodland to the north of the site, and the emerging plans for Harlow North will pay particular attention to these areas. In your evidence to the House of Commons Environmental audit Committee you state " The plan and designs for Harlow North that emerged during the EbD perform well against independent and well-established measures of sustainability". Was the assessment done at the EbyD performed by the project team employed by Ropemakers? Why did the independent sustainability statement submitted to the EiP give a much more negative picture? Are you disappointed by the independent sustainability statement submitted to the EIP which shows only one weak postive statement:"Potential positive contribution to regeneration objectives" but shows "Significant negative effects: Potential that site may not be adequately linked to Harlow, which would not promote regeneration objectives Environmental effects of loss of Green Belt area Effects on sub-regionally important landscapes, wildlife, and historic features Loss of tranquillity and potential disturbance by aircraft noise Increased demands on water supply Possible increased flooding risk" and indicates "Delivery would be post-2016 - Dependent on infrastructure provision, particularly northern link road and public transport links." ? The planning consultants to Ropemaker Properties Limited advise that the Sustainability Assessments undertaken in connection with the EERA submission to the Harlow days of the Examination in Public of the draft East of England Plan were the subject of considerable technical criticism during the debate. It was evident from the comments of the Panel Chairman that the Panel shared these concerns. The reasons for the shortcomings of the Assessments were set out by EERA during the debate. It remains to be seen what weight the Panel will give to these assessments in comparison to their own assessment of the sustainability of the planning strategy based on other written and oral evidence provided to the EiP. The assessment for the Enquiry by Design of the Ropemaker Properties Limited proposals against sustainability criteria was undertaken by members of the project team. Your response to another question is that "Ropemaker Properties Limited is currently considering the options for a biomass-fuelled energy generating plant." Current best thinking on biomass generation is use of dedicated energy crops such as miscanthus, which in UK can be grown at a yield of 22 tonnes/ha/year. A 2MW power plant (sufficient for 2000 average homes) uses 22,000 tones/year, ie the output from 1000 hectares. On the reasonable assumption that all non-residential buildings would consume an equivalent power, then your proposals for a 25,000 home development would require a cropping area of 25,000 hectares - a field 16km x 16km. Where is this field? These calculations rely on the assumption that such a plant would be the sole source of energy for not only the proposed 10,000 dwelling extension that Ropemaker Properties Limited proposes, but also the potential growth to 25,000 dwellings which we have suggested is possible. Our energy strategy involves generation from a mix of renewable sources, of which biomass is only one. The exact proportion of energy provided by each source is still subject to discussion and research. What fuel would be used in the Combined Heat and Power plant you propose? Ropemaker Properties Limited is currently considering the options for a biomass-fuelled energy generating plant. Potential fuel sources may include wood pellets, energy crops, and wood fuel derived from short-rotation coppicing, traditional management of existing woodland areas and arboricultural arisings. Ropemaker project co-ordinator Chris Knight said the bird study (details of which were recently announced on this Q&A) was part of a wider package of ecological and archaeological assessments. Why have you not released the data on all these studies at this time? What unpublished data exists that is not available to inform the public and Panel during the EiP? Thank you for your question. This has been forwarded to an appropriate member of the project team, and will be answered in full as soon as possible. How do you react to John Dowie's comments (Go-East) at EiP that "there needs to be iteration back to the development trajectory to reflect realities in terms of the water industry".? How do those realities, especially overabstraction of water in the Upper Lee Catchment, affect your proposals? The Environment Agency has made it clear in their recent publications that water abstraction from both rivers and ground sources in the region is at or close to capacity, and that further water resources will have to be made available from new resources, water transfers and water efficiencies. The Water Strategy for Harlow North will include ambitious water efficiency measures to ensure that the impact of the development on the water resources of the region will be minimised. At the EiP you stated that you "are beginning to develop solutions (for sewage treatment) that are capabale of being implemented commercially". Can you describe how long this development might take, who is doing the trials, where and on what scale? What alternatives solutions do you have to the issues of sewage treatment should this development programme fail? There are a range of technologies being considered for local treatment at Harlow North, all of which are technically feasible, and have been implemented elsewhere. We do not therefore envisage the need to undertake trials. Your new prospectus talks about catching rain water to re-use in non potable systems e.g for toilet flushing. How will capturing this water affect the flow in the local water courses especially in summer? Will these local streams effectively only flow with treated effluent from you neighbourhood sewage treatment plants? The Environment Agency will impose appropriate discharge consent on any treatment plant that is proposed. Local streams will benefit from receiving a high quality supplementary flow throughout the year from the treatment works. Have you done an integrated water cycle studies for Harlow North and if so will you publish them on this web site? Formal integrated water cycle studies are carried out at a regional level by the Environment Agency, and to our knowledge the EA has not carried one out for the Harlow area. In your prospectus you show local sewage treatment plant. Would they discharge into water courses upstream of the Hunsdon Meads SSI? Yes, the proposed treatment plants would discharge upstream of the Hunsdon Meads SSSI. The water entering the watercourses will be of a high quality, and we do not anticipate that the discharges will have any adverse effect on the ecology of the watercourses or Hunsdon Meads: in fact we anticipate that the flow will enhances the ecology by providing a more constant base flow. You are proposing a marina and other recreational activities around the "living bridge" (currently part of the A414 and the main access road into Harlow). How does this fit with the environmentally sensitive linkage suggested in the draft East of England Plan and what effect will this have downstream on the Hunsdon Meads SSI? The detailed design of these proposals would have regard to any requirements in the East of England Plan and would of necessity have to demonstrate that there would be no detrimental effect on the Hunsdon Meads SSI. Your latest masterplan for Harlow North shows a wind turbine in what was the natural flood plain of the River Stort, but which you propose to convert into a water park. Have you checked this plan with BAA since I understand turbines generate electromagnetic interference and consequently would not be allowed on the flight path into Stansted. Moreover the average wind speed at that point is only 5.4m/s and turbines are normally only viable when the average wind speed is 8m/s. Is this not just another example of Ropemakers making promises they cannot, and have no intention of keeping? The most recent iteration of the masterplan for Harlow North does not show a wind turbine in the floodplain of the River Stort. A previous indicative illustration of the floodplain park and ?living bridge', produced by a working party of the project team and shown at some presentations given by Ropemaker Properties Limited as work in progress, included a possible location for wind turbines in that area. If you "strongly agree the importance of ancient woodland as outlined above, and the need to preserve it" then why does your plan for a northern bypass cut straight through one such area? The proposal for a northern bypass is not a proposal by Ropemaker Properties Limited: it is a County Council promoted scheme that now finds expression in the draft East of England Plan. Such design work that has been undertaken by Essex County Council dates from the early 1990s, long before the current proposals for Harlow were formulated. The alternative alignment for the bypass submitted by Ropemaker Properties Limited has no formal status, but shows a possible alignment that takes account of the proposed development on land to the north of Harlow. All alternative routes for a Harlow northern bypass are likely to have some adverse effects on environmental interests, including areas of ancient woodland. As is the case in all planning decisions, it is a matter of balancing the advantages and disadvantages of particular alternative options. The images on the iCube web site decribing your proposals seem to show a marina around the living bridge. Is this a serious proposal? Yes. We believe that the floodplain of the River Stort has the potential to become a vital ecological and recreational resource for an integrated Harlow. How are you "aware that Professor O'Riordan has produced a report for the East of England Regional Assembly on Planning for Sustainable Communities for the Harlow-Epping Sub-Region" when it is not available on the EERA web site? We received a draft of this report from Professor O'Riordan for our information, following a presentation which Ropemaker Properties Limited had been invited to give to the Sustainable Development Commission. In a recent answer (Jan 2006) you state "we are seeking to establish how best to go about creating the most sustainable possible extension to Harlow". We can take from this that your proposals might not be sustainable. Why have you been promoting Harlow North as sustainable when you don't have the solutions ? We believe that the work that has been done so far, and both the commitments and aspirations set by the project team, go a considerable way towards making Harlow North an exemplary sustainable development. It is also true that a great deal of work remains to be done. There is no contradiction here. How do you react to the EiP submission from the Environment Agency that " Water quality modelling using the projected population for 2026 shows that the standards required to treat the sewage from Rye Meads to protect the river Lee are beyond the current limits of sewage treatment technology."? Ropemaker Properties Limited is investigating possible alternative water management and integrated systems for water supply and sewage treatment. This may include separate supply systems for potable and non-potable water together with locally based sewerage treatment systems. Further information can be found in the new prospectus for Harlow North which is available to download as a PDF elsewhere on this site. I understand Timothy O'Riordan, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, has done some research relating to Harlow North. Is that correct? What was the outcome of that research? Has the project paid for or contributed to the costs of this research? We are aware that Professor O'Riordan has produced a report for the East of England Regional Assembly on Planning for Sustainable Communities for the Harlow-Epping Sub-Region. Ropemaker Properties Limited did not contribute to the costs of this particular work. You told the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee that the " land's biodiversity could be increased by changing from the somewhat ecologically sterile mainstream agricultural uses to which most of the area is currently put". How is biodiversity increased by house building- what are the effects of development on bats, deer, rabbits, hare,voles, foxes ( to name a few) and bird species that inhabit the agricultural landscape? Ropemaker Properties Limited's proposals will bring a carefully planned approach to the retention of the existing features of biodiversity and the creation of extensive new habitats especially, but not exclusively, in the Forest Park and Stort valley that will support a much wider range of species in the long term. Man-made features can also provide benefits to wildlife. Birds and particularly bats have a known association with housing and other man-made structures, particularly if these are designed sensitively with the needs of wildlife in mind. Gardens can also provide valuable habitat for birds. The impacts of the proposals on wildlife in the area, both positive and negative, will undergo a vigorous assessment using the latest guidelines. The methodology used and the results of the assessment, including any residual impacts after mitigation, will all be set out in an Environmental Statement that will accompany any planning application. As neither English Nature nor the Countryside Agency attended your Sustainability Symposia how can anybody consider the output representative of the full spectrum of opinions? We have never claimed that the Symposia involved the "full spectrum" of every opinion on the issue of how to create sustainable communities, and it would be unrealistic to expect any one event of this nature to be able to do so. The Symposia were part of an ongoing process through which we are seeking to establish how best to go about creating the most sustainable possible extension to Harlow. Ancient Woodland: Is land continuously wooded for at least 400 years (and often much longer) and is one of the great glories of our natural heritage. Ancient woods are our richest habitat for wildlife, including more rare and threatened species than any other UK habitat. They are places of inordinate beauty, reservoirs of evidence for environmental change, archaeology and economic history, and a source of inspiration for local culture and folklore. Our resource of ancient woodland is finite and cannot increase, so what remains is precious and irreplaceable. Protection for ancient woodland: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently introduced new planning guidance which states: "Ancient woodland is a valuable biodiversity resource both for the diversity of species and for its longevity as woodland. Once lost it cannot be recreated. Local planning authorities should identify any areas of ancient woodland in their areas that do not have statutory protection (e.g. as an SSSI). They should not grant planning permission for any developments that would result in its loss or deterioration. Aged or 'veteran' trees found outside ancient woodland are also particularly valuable for biodiversity and their loss should be avoided. Planning authorities should encourage the conservation of such trees as part of development proposals." (ODPM, PPS9, 2005, paragraph 10)) . How do these statements affect your proposals for Harlow North? We strongly agree the importance of ancient woodland as outlined above, and the need to preserve it. Our proposals endeavour to retain, and where possible join up and increase in size, the ancient woodland to the north of Harlow, in order to create significant areas of green space, containing functioning ecosystems. Aged trees outside the woodland will be protected wherever possible. The EiP asks "Does the plan adequately reflect ...environmental capacities". Why do your submissions to the EiP not document the extensive work you have done on the sensitive natural environment north of Harlow? The Examination in Public is concerned with the strategic planning issues arising from the allocation of land north of Harlow for major development. The detailed environmental surveys that have been undertaken by Ropemaker Properties Limited necessarily relate to a specific site and as such are considered unduly site specific for submission to the EiP process. Can you estimate how many tonnes of C02 will be produced in building Harlow North? Proposals for the construction of Harlow North, as well as its operation once built, have been developed to minimise the amount of CO2 produced, through measures such as minimisation of transportation of materials, use of materials with low-embodied energy, energy efficiency measures and use of renewable energy. At this stage we are not in a position to be able to translate these measures into any estimation of the tonnage of CO2 that will be produced during the construction of Harlow North. Your website has recently included detailed plans for an outer northern bypass which encompasses and proposes development of Eastwick and Gilston, most of which is Green Belt designated land. Would you support the designation of land outside (ie north of) that bypass as Green Belt to compensate? A review of the Green Belt would be carried out by the appropriate statutory bodies within areas where building on such land is being considered. A Harlow Northern Bypass is a proposal in the draft East of England Plan ? it is not in itself one of our proposals, although in our response to the draft Pla