Supplementary Committee Agenda
Local Development Framework Cabinet Committee Monday, 20th December, 2010
Place: Council Chamber Civic Offices, High Street, Epping
Time: 8.00 pm
Democratic Services: Gary Woodhall (The Office of the Chief Executive) Tel: 01992 564470 Email: [email protected]
5. STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT (Pages 51 - 96)
(Director of Planning & Economic Development) To consider the attached Appendix, being the full version of the Flood Assessment.
A copy of the full report has been placed in the Members’ Room, distributed to all members of the Cabinet Committee and is available on the Council’s website as a supplementary agenda for this meeting. If any other Member requires a hardcopy of the full report then please contact either the Responsible Officer or Democratic Services Officer listed on the report before the date of the meeting.
7. ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT 2009/10 (Pages 97 - 160)
(Director of Planning & Economic Development) To consider the attached Appendix, being the full version of the Monitoring Report.
A copy of the full Monitoring Report has been placed in the Members’ Room, distributed to all members of the Cabinet Committee and is available on the Council’s website as a supplementary agenda for this meeting. If any other Member requires a hardcopy of the full monitoring report then please contact either the Responsible Officer or Democratic Services Officer listed on the report before the date of the meeting.
1 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5
Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Epping Forest District Council Harlow Council
March 2010
Page 51 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Final Report
Issue Date: xxx
Prepared by: Ben Meuli
Checked by: xxx (EFDC), xxx (Harlow)
Approved by: xxx (EFDC), xxx (Harlow)
Version History
Version xx.xx Revised xx.xx.xx
Page 52 2 CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5
1.1 OVERVIEW ...... 5 1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 5 1.3 THE SEQUENTIAL AND EXCEPTION TESTS...... 6 2. FLOOD RISK IN EPPING FOREST AND HARLOW DISTRICTS...... 8
2.1 STUDYAREA ...... 8 2.1.1 Epping Forest ...... 8 2.1.2 Harlow...... 9 2.2. GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND RIVER CATCHMENTS...... 9 2.2.1 Epping Forest ...... 9 2.2.2 Harlow...... 10 2.3 HISTORY OF FLOODING ...... 11 2.3.1 Epping Forest ...... 11 2.3.2 Harlow...... 12 3. POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 13
3.1 OVERVIEW ...... 13 3.2 OBJECTIVE ...... 13 3.3 THE EUROPEAN POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 13 3.3.1 The Water Framework Directive 2000...... 13 3.3.2 The Habitats Directive 1992 ...... 13 3.4 NATIONAL POLICY AND LEGISLATION IN ENGLAND ...... 13 3.4.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004...... 13 3.4.2 Future Water 2007...... 14 3.4.3 The Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007 ...... 14 3.4.4 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Amendment) (No. 2) England) Order 2008 Guidance on the Permeable Surfacing of Front Gardens – 10 September 2008...... 14 3.4.5 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Technical Guidance – Living draft version 1 (February 2009)...... 14 3.4.6 The Flood Risk Regulations 2009...... 15 3.4.7 The Flood and Water Management Act (2010)...... 15 3.4.8 Planning policy statements ...... 16 3.4.9 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) and PPS: Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to PPS1 (2007) and Planning Policy Statement Consultation: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate (March 2010).... 16 3.4.10 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) (2007) ...... 16 3.4.11 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS 25) (2010) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk - Practice Guide – Published 7 December 2009 ...... 16 3.5 REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY ...... 17 3.5.1 Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan – Managing flood risk (2009) ...... 17 3.5.2 Rye Meads Water Cycle Strategy...... 17 3.6 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY...... 17 3.6.1 EFDC Local Plan (1998)...... 17 3.6.2 Replacement Harlow Local Plan (2006) ...... 19 4. STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT...... 21
4.1 OVERVIEW...... 21 4.2 LIST OF MAPS ...... 21 4.3 LIST OF DATA SOURCES ...... 21 4.4 FLUVIAL FLOODING...... 22 4.5 SURFACE WATER FLOODING ...... 26 4.6 GROUNDWATER FLOODING...... 26 4.7 SEWER FLOODING ...... 27
Page 53 3 4.8 FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE AND ARTIFICIAL SOURCES OF FLOODING ...... 27 4.8.1 Epping Forest District...... 28 4.8.2 Harlow...... 30 4.9 RESIDUAL RISK ...... 30 4.10 CLIMATE CHANGE...... 31 5. EMERGENCY PLANNING ...... 32
5.1 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 32 5.2 FLOOD WARNING...... 32 6. DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE...... 34
6.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE SPECIFIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 34 6.2 DEVELOPMENT WITHIN EPPING FOREST DISTRICT AND EFDC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT ZONES 35 6.3 SUDS – SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS...... 36 7. RECOMMENDATIONS...... 38
7.1 CLIMATE CHANGE...... 38 7.2 FUNCTIONAL FLOODPLAIN/FLOOD ALLEVIATION AND STORAGE SCHEMES ...... 38 7.3 OTHER FORMS OF FLOODING ...... 38 7.4 SITE ALLOCATIONS ...... 38 7.5 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS...... 39 7.6 EMERGENCY PLANNING/RISK AWARENESS ...... 39 8. ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY...... 41 9. REFERENCES ...... 45 10. APPENDICES...... 46
List of Figures and Tables
FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA 8 TABLE 1 SFRA DATA SOURCES 19 TABLE 2 FLOOD ZONE DEFINITIONS FROM PPS25 20 TABLE 3 FLOOD ZONE 3B DATA SOURCES 21 TABLE 4 FLOOD ZONE 3A DATA SOURCES 22 TABLE 5 FLOOD ZONE 2 DATA SOURCES 22 TABLE 6 CLIMATE CHANGE FLOOD ZONE 3A DATA SOURCES 23 TABLE 7 CLIMATE CHANGE FLOOD ZONE 3B DATA SOURCES 23 TABLE 8 EMERGENCY PLANNING INFRASTRUCTURE 30 TABLE 9 COMMON SUDS METHODS 35
List of maps Map 1 Watercourses, ponds, lakes, Main Rivers Map 2 Main River catchments Map 3 Historical flooding incidents Map 4 Flood Zones Map 5 Climate change Map 6 Areassusceptible tosurfacewaterflooding Map 7 Drift geology Map 8 Solid geology Map 9 Flood defences/structures Map 10 Emergency planning Map 11 Roads at risk of becoming impassable Map 12 EFDC Flood Risk Assessment Zones Map13 Soil types
Page 54 4 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
This is a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) produced jointly by Epping Forest and Harlow District Councils in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) Development and Flood Risk (March 2010). An SFRA is the ‘categorisation’ of flood risk on an area-wide basis and the application of a risk-based approach to flood risk management. The preparation of a joint SFRA for the two districts will enable an assessment of flood risk based on a wider geographical area and a more strategic catchment wide assessment. The neighbouring East Hertfordshire District Council has published a Level 1 SFRA and details can be found on the Council’s web site at www.eastherts.gov.uk.
The Practice Guide Companion (Dec 2009) to PPS25 indicates that a Level 1 SFRA “should be sufficiently detailed to allow application of the Sequential Test… or whether application of the Exception Test is necessary” (para 3.53). The Sequential Test (see section 1.3 below) is aimed at locating development in areas with the lowest risk of flooding. The Exception Test (see section 1.3 below) requires that, if development has to be located in an area of flood risk, (i) it must provide wider sustainability benefits that outweigh these risks, (ii) it should be on previously developed land and (iii) it must be safe.
The mapping outcomes of this study will form the basis for application of the Sequential and Exception Tests. The outcomes will also contribute to a Level 2 SFRA, which is a more targeted look at specific areas and which will be carried out if required after publication of this Level 1 SFRA.
This SFRA assumes the reader is competent in the knowledge of processes and systems contributing to flooding, the principles of flood risk management, the measures to minimise flood risk and the principles behind an informative and useful Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Basic level information is therefore not discussed but various references for further reading are provided in the text.
1.2 Aims and objectives
Planning policy should aim “to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at the risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall” (PPS25, para 5). In identifying suitable locations for development, PPS25 therefore requires local planning authorities (LPAs) to apply a precautionary approach to the issue of flooding, using a sequential approach to avoid such risk where possible and to manage it elsewhere. PPS25 also aims to reduce risk by using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding.
The aim of this SFRA is to identify areas within Epping Forest and Harlow Districts that may be at risk from all sources of flooding, to identify and detail factors which may influence current and future flood risk and to identify what development may be suitable for different areas of land. The key planning objective, as identified by
Page 55 5 1. Introduction
PPS25, is to help to deliver sustainable development by appraising, managing and reducing flood risk.
The SFRA will be used to inform the Sustainability Appraisals (incorporating the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive) of Local Development Documents (LDDs), and will provide the basis from which to apply the Sequential and Exception Tests in land allocations and the development control/management process. It will also be used to assist emergency planning processes.
This SFRA does not contain advice for existing occupiers who currently live in designated Flood Zones. For further information and advice on flooding and how to safeguard premises the Environment Agency can be contacted on 08708 506506 (general enquiries) or 0845 9881188 (Floodline) or via their Website at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/flood/.
1.3 The Sequential and Exception Tests
The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer development to areas at the lowest risk of flooding. The Sequential Test should be applied at all levels of the planning process. When allocating land for development as part of the LDD, the LPAs will apply the Sequential Test in a transparent way using the data and mapping outcomes of this SFRA. A LPA should apply the Sequential Test to demonstrate that that there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development or land use proposed (PPS25).
For individual planning applications where a site has not been sequentially tested in the LDD, the Sequential Test will need to be applied at the individual site level. It is the responsibility of the developer to provide site specific evidence (not this SFRA) to the LPA in order for the LPA to apply the test. It is for the LPA, taking advice from the Environment Agency as appropriate, to consider the extent to which Sequential Test considerations have been satisfied, taking into account the particular site circumstances.
Preference should be given to locating new development in Flood Zone 1 (refer to section 4.4 for Flood Zone definitions). If there is no reasonably available site in Flood Zone 1, the flood vulnerability of the proposed development (see Table D.2 in PPS25) can be taken into account in locating development in Flood Zone 2 and then Flood Zone 3. Within each Flood Zone new development should be directed to sites at the lowest probability of flooding from all sources as indicated by this SFRA (PPS25).
Application of the Sequential Test should ensure that more vulnerable property types, such as residential housing, will not be allocated to areas at high risk of flooding. In exceptional circumstances, there may be valid reasons for a development type which is not compatible with the level of flood risk at a particular site to be considered. In these circumstances it must be demonstrated that the development passes all elements of the Exception Test. Refer to Table D.3 in PPS25 which describes what land uses are appropriate in each Flood Zone, which land uses are only appropriate subject to meeting the Exception Test and which land uses are always inappropriate. The Exception Test should only be applied following application of the Sequential Test (PPS25 Practice Guide).
For the Exception Test to be passed:
Page 56 6 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
a) It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community outweigh flood risk. If the Development Plan Document has reached the ‘submission’ stage the benefits of the development should contribute to the Core Strategy’s Sustainability Appraisal;
b) The development should be on developable brownfield land or, if it is not on brownfield land, that there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable brownfield land; and
c) A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.
The requirements necessary to meet part c) are described in section 6.1 below.
The PPS25 Practice Guide should be consulted for further guidance on applying the Sequential and Exception Tests.
Page 57 7 2. Flood Risk in Epping Forest and Harlow Districts
2. Flood Risk in Epping Forest and Harlow Districts
2.1 Study area
The study area comprises the district council areas of Epping Forest and Harlow as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Study area
2.1.1 Epping Forest
Epping Forest District is situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt, abutting the north-east edge of London, in the south west corner of Essex. It comprises the towns of Loughton/Buckhurst Hill (population 41,000), Waltham Abbey (pop. 20,400), Chigwell (pop. 12,500), Epping (pop. 11,000) and Chipping Ongar (pop. 6,000) together with villages, the largest of which are Theydon Bois, North Weald Bassett, Roydon and Nazeing. These figures were taken from the 2001 census. Many of the towns and villages are historic but those close to London grew rapidly as commuter towns. This was particularly in connection with the coming of what is now the Central Line of London Underground.
The District has an important position in the national motorway network. The M11 runs north-south almost through the centre of the District with local road connections at Hastingwood (just south of Harlow) and Loughton (exit only north-bound and entrance only south-bound). The M25 crosses the District east-west with a local road junction at Waltham Abbey and an interchange with the M11. The Central Line of the London Underground has stations at Buckhurst Hill, Loughton, Debden, Theydon Bois, Epping, Roding Valley, Chigwell and Grange Hill. Roydon is the only National Rail station in the District - on the line between Liverpool Street, Stansted and Cambridge.
Page 58 8 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
With the exception of the towns and larger villages the District is entirely within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The consistent application of Green Belt policies has meant that some 90% of the District's 130 square miles is still open and undeveloped comprising generally attractive countryside. The District's population was 121,000 in 2001 Census.
2.1.2 Harlow
Harlow is located in the west of the county and on the border with Hertfordshire, on the Stort Valley. Harlow is bordered by Epping Forest District Council to the west, south and east, and East Herts District Council to the north, with the River Stort forming a natural boundary. The town is parallel to the M11 and forms part of the London commuter belt and M11 London - Cambridge growth corridor. The district has a current population of 78,768 (2005 estimate).
Harlow is a former new town, conceived in the 1940s in response to the need for housing arising from wartime destruction in London and the south east. The opportunity was taken to create a properly planned town that met housing, employment, leisure and other community needs in a co-ordinated way and which accorded with emerging good practice in town planning.
Sir Frederick Gibberd was commissioned to prepare a masterplan that would create homes and employment areas as well as places to shop and places that provided for leisure and recreation. These were provided within a comprehensively designed town centre and employment areas and in a number of neighbourhood and smaller centres (hatches) distributed across the town serving adjoining residential areas. These areas were held together through a network of green wedges that brought the countryside within easy reach of residents and which provided an accessible green framework for leisure, recreation and other community needs.
The principles on which Harlow was founded have provided a model of sustainable development that continues to have relevance in securing the sustainable communities of tomorrow. The original purpose behind the development of Harlow to house people in the south east in genuine well designed communities with access to good services and amenities while protecting and enhancing environmental quality is as relevant today as it was in 1947 when Gibberd’s Masterplan was originally unveiled. The building blocks provided by the Masterplan, have contributed positively to the creation of Harlow’s distinct character.
2.2. Geography, geology and river catchments
2.2.1 Epping Forest
The District geography is predominantly made up of gentle rolling landscapes with steeper slopes in southern areas surrounding Epping Forest. Catchments in the district are largely rural arable, horticultural or grassland with some areas of woodland. The major tributary catchments are generally considered to be relatively steep and flashy and respond quickly to rainfall. The district is well drained by established local drainage systems which in turn feed the larger watercourses.
Except for a small area west of Nazeing, the entire Epping Forest District is underlain by the London Clay Formation. The highly impermeable nature of this unit precludes the use of infiltration drainage throughout most of the district. Northeast of Epping the London Clay is overlain by variable thicknesses of Drift deposits consisting of glacial
Page 59 9 2. Flood Risk in Epping Forest and Harlow Districts till (boulder clay) of variable permeability. West and south of Epping (Waltham Abbey, Loughton, Buckhurst Hill) the London Clay outcrops at surface.
The Claygate Member of the Upper London Clay underlies the ‘Epping Forest spine’ between High Beach and North Weald and small areas around Epping Green, Abridge, and High Ongar. This unit is predominantly composed of sands and has a higher permeability than the rest of the London Clay.
In the vicinity of Lower Nazeing the London Clay Formation is missing and the underlying geology is the Lambeth Group, consisting of generally highly permeable sands.
Other Drift deposits in the Epping Forest District consist of minor extents of river terrace gravels (Kesgrave Sands and Gravels) in the vicinity of the River Lee, ‘floodplain’ alluvium associated with the River Lee and Roding systems, and slope movement ‘Head’ in the immediate vicinity of many of the major drainage channels.
The permeability and hence adequacy of infiltration systems should be tested on site where anything other than London Clay is exposed at surface, however it should be borne in mind that the surface geology may be relatively thin and the underlying geology is impermeable. Use of infiltration drainage could contribute to groundwater flooding elsewhere.
The District consists of two major river systems namely the Roding and Lee rivers. The Roding runs from north to south along parts of the eastern boundary of the District and the Lee flows along the western boundary. The major catchment system within the district is relatively simple with the Roding catchment dominating the eastern two-thirds of the district, the Lee catchment occupying the western one-third and a small section at the north of the district being home to the Stort catchment. Pincey Brook is the dominant watercourse and key feature within the Stort catchment.
The Lower Lee catchment is heavily urbanised with large parts of the floodplain developed. The combination of man-made surfaces and clayey soils means local rivers respond rapidly to rainfall and are liable to sudden flooding after storms. The Lower Lee also drains a large, mainly rural area upstream. Nazeing Brook and Cobbins Brook are the two main tributaries of the Lower Lee within the study area.
The River Roding has its source just north of Epping Forest District. The river runs south from Beauchamp Roding to the east of Fyfield and Ongar, then forms the eastern boundary of the district to Passingford Bridge, where it turns west, running north of Abridge, and then south-west between Loughton/Buckhurst Hill and Chigwell. The catchment has a rapid response to rainfall which is typical for a catchment overlying London Clay. Cripsey Brook, which is a major tributary of the Roding, has its source near Thornwood and flows in a gentle bend eastwards towards the Roding.
2.2.2 Harlow
The District has one major river running through it which forms the northern boundary of the town, namely the River Stort. Throughout its length in Harlow it is canalised and is consequently navigable. British Waterways is responsible for the navigation.
Page 60 10 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
A number of springs supply other water courses in the town. These are Todd Brook and Parndon Brook which flow into Canons Brook, which feeds into the Stort Navigation. These Brooks run through some of Harlow’s main Green Wedges.
Harlowbury Brook is to the east of the town. It runs partly in a culvert through Churchgate Street, and then to the east of Old Harlow, finally flowing into the navigation at Harlow Mill. Pincey Brook forms the north eastern boundary of the town and flows into the navigation.
The landscape character of Harlow has evolved as a result of a complex interaction between its physical structure, vegetation and historic land use, all of which have been strongly influenced by the underlying geology.
The oldest rocks consist of hard, slaty shales, mudstones and sandstones. Overlying this base are a number of different geological layers formed between 135 million years ago to the present, leading up to and including the Harlow area's surface geology.
The surface geology of Harlow overlies an occasionally exposed layer of London Clay interspersed with Claygate Beds. Lowestoft Till laid down during the Anglian Ice Age (472 – 428 thousand years ago) dominates the drift geology. As a consequence the majority of the surface geology is composed of clays, silts and sands with scattered boulders (erratics) known collectively as boulder clay. This originally formed a plateau that has been slowly dissected by the formation of the rivers.
The rivers and their valleys lie on alluvium composed of clay, silt, sand and gravel; products of fluvial erosion of the Kesgrave formation and Lowestoft Till deposited along the river floor and its surrounding floodplain. Sand and gravel are found adjacent to the alluvium along the outer extents of the valley floor. However the higher, smaller tributaries have exposed head and glaciolfluvial deposits. On the steeper valley sides, especially to the east of the River Lee, the drift geology has been entirely eroded away to expose London Clay and the remains of a landslide south of the River Lee and Stort confluence.
The catchment area for Harlow is the River Stort. To the south this is indicated by a strong ridge line which forms the southern boundary of the built up area. Within Harlow the brooks and other drainage features flow north through the town towards the River Stort. The watercourses run largely through open spaces and undeveloped parkland.
Map 1 shows the main watercourses within the Assessment area while Map 2 shows the major river catchments.
2.3 History of flooding
Map 3 shows historical flooding incidents within the Assessment area.
2.3.1 Epping Forest
It was as a result of the high risk of flooding in the district that a land drainage section was formed in 1978 and the Council has continued to allocate funds for a wide range of flood defence measures. Major flooding events have since occurred in 1987, 1993, 1997 and October 2000 which had varying degrees of impact.
Page 61 11 2. Flood Risk in Epping Forest and Harlow Districts
2.3.2 Harlow
From the inception of the New Town the flood of 1947 seems to have had the most impact on the town. It covered an extensive area of the River Stort valley and covered significant areas of the town’s major employment area at Templefields. In addition both Todd Brook and Parndon Brook flooded.
Since then the town’s development has to a great extent ameliorated the potential flooding in the town. Floods of 1947, 1968, 1974, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2002 and 2003 have been mostly confined to the functional flood plain.
Page 62 12 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
3. Policy Framework
3.1 Overview
This section covers planning policy documents related to flood risk, including national, regional and development plans at local policy level. Development plans provide clear guidance for prospective developers and are prepared following wide community consultation and stakeholder involvement.
3.2 Objective
PPS25 published by DCLG in December 2006 (and revised in March 2010), sets out the need for LPAs to assess the potential impact of flooding so that this may be fully taken into account in the preparation of local development documents.
A Level 1 SFRA is required to be sufficiently detailed to allow application of the Sequential Test, which is aimed at locating development in areas with the lowest risk of flooding. The Exception Test requires that, if development has to be located in an area of flood risk, it must provide wider sustainability benefits that outweigh the risks.
The following provides an overview of the relevant policy documents and a brief explanation of their significance for the SFRA.
3.3 The European Policy Framework
3.3.1 The Water Framework Directive 2000
This became part of UK law in December 2003. The main aim is to plan and deliver a better water environment (focusing on ecology) by protecting and enhancing surface freshwater (including lakes, rivers and streams) and groundwater. Other objectives include ‘good status’ for all waters by a set deadline , and water management based on river basins rather than by administrative boundaries. The Environment Agency is the lead authority.
3.3.2 The Habitats Directive 1992
The EU Habitats Directive aims to protect the wild plants, animals and habitats that make up our diverse natural environment. The directive created a network of protected areas of national and international importance. In the UK, the Habitats Directive is implemented by the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations (1994), more commonly known as the Habitats Regulations.
3.4 National Policy and Legislation in England
3.4.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
This Act introduced the Local Development Framework with Regional Spatial Strategies and Development Plan Documents replacing Structure Plans and Local Plans, although RSSs have now been abolished by the Coalition Government. Wider community engagement and the inclusion of plans and programmes of other agencies (eg health, education) are key to the production of the LDF, which should be seen as the mechanism to draw together public service capital programmes.
Page 63 13 3. Policy Framework
Section 39 of the Act introduces the need to “contribute to the achievement of sustainable development” in the preparation of local development documents.
3.4.2 Future Water 2007
The Government’s water strategy ‘Future Water’ sets out a vision for more effective management of surface water, taking into account the effects of climate change and in order to deal with pressures of future housing demand. The intention is to manage surface water more sustainably by 2030 allowing for the increased capture and reuse of water, slow absorption through the ground, and where appropriate more above- ground storage and routing of surface water separate from foul sewers. To reduce costs, water will be increasingly managed on the surface, rather than relying on wholesale upgrade of the sewer system to higher design standards. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/strategy/pdf/future-water.pdf)
3.4.3 The Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007
To safeguard against inappropriate development in flood risk areas, the Direction introduces a requirement for LPAs to notify the Secretary of State of any application for major development (e.g. 10 or more dwellings) in a flood risk area which it proposes to approve against the Environment Agency’s advice.
3.4.4 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Amendment) (No. 2) England) Order 2008 Guidance on the Permeable Surfacing of Front Gardens – 10 September 2008
The Order changed permitted development arrangements relating to works that householders can carry out to include development within their gardens. The amendments to the General Permitted Development Order (GDPO) permit hard surfacing of more than five square metres of domestic front gardens, only where the surface in question is rendered permeable with a porous finish.
Following the changes to the GDPO, the guidance on permeable surfacing provides advice to householders of the options for achieving permeability. This document can be found at: (http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pavingfrontgardens ?view=Standard)
3.4.5 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Technical Guidance – Living draft version 1 (February 2009)
SWMPs will have a significant role in the management of flood risk as it will look at the interaction between rivers, surface water and sewers. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/documents/manage/surfacewater/swm p-guide.pdf)
The Guidance develops some of the key policy proposals set out in “Future Water”. In line with Pitt Review of the 2007 summer floods (in particular recommendation 18), the Guidance proposes local SWMPs to be co-ordinated by local authorities in partnership with stakeholders including water companies/ utilities, the Environment Agency, and Internal Drainage Boards, to provide the basis for managing all local flood risk (as set out in PPS25). (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/thepittreview)
Page 64 14 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
3.4.6 The Flood Risk Regulations 2009
Essex County Council is Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) as defined in the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 and is required to produce a range of plans to satisfy the requirements of the EU Floods Directive, these are:
• Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment
• Flood Risk and Flood Hazard Map
• Flood Risk Management Plan
These plans will be submitted to the Environment Agency and need to be reviewed on a six yearly cycle. The EA is currently developing guidance on producing PFRAs, which will include methods to take account of environmental impacts and will identify where there is likely to be a significant risk of flooding (“significant” remains to be defined). (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20093042_en_1)
3.4.7 The Flood and Water Management Act (2010)
The Act received Royal Assent in April 2010 and will come into force in April 2011:
• The Environment Agency (EA) will be required to develop a national strategy for the management of all sources of flood risk for England;
• The lead local flood authority for the study area, responsible for developing, maintaining and monitoring a strategy for local flood risk management, will be Essex County Council. The local strategy will not be secondary to the national strategy – rather it will have distinct objectives to manage flood risks important to local communities. Local flood risk includes surface run-off, groundwater and ordinary watercourses (including lakes and ponds);
• The Act recognises the roles of, inter alia, district councils and water companies and these are identified as risk management authorities, along with the EA and County Council. Partnership working is encouraged, and the lead local authority can delegate flood functions to another risk management authority;
• The County Council also becomes the SuDS Approving Body (SAB) for the study area, responsible for the approval of proposed drainage systems in new developments and redevelopments, subject to exemptions and thresholds. No construction can commence until such approval is given. The SAB will also be responsible for adopting and maintaining SuDS which serve more than one property, where they have been approved. The County Council, as highways authority, will also be responsible for maintaining SuDS in public roads;
• The County Council, Epping Forest and Harlow Councils and the Environment Agency can “designate” structures that affect flooding or the risk of flooding. Once a structure or feature is designated, the owner must seek consent from the designating authority to alter, remove or replace it. This new power is intended to overcome the risk of a person damaging or removing a structure or feature on private land which is relied on for flood risk management. The SAB will also be required to place all approved SuDS on
Page 65 15 3. Policy Framework
the register of structures and features. Updates of this SFRA will include a list of the designated structures.
3.4.8 Planning policy statements
National planning policy plays a key role in shaping the direction in which local planning authorities (LPAs) prepare their local development frameworks (LDFs).
Planning policy statements set out Government’s policies on different aspects of land use planning in England. Whilst not all policy is directly relevant to the development of a SFRA, it is important to recognise that the exercise takes place within the context of other planning policy statements, some of which also require sequential testing of site allocations and development proposals. Key principles from these statements for the SFRA are described in the following sections. (http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidanc e/planningpolicystatements/)
3.4.9 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) and PPS: Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to PPS1 (2007) and Planning Policy Statement Consultation: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate (March 2010)
PPS1 sets out Government’s objectives on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system; this should take into account the impact of climate change for the lifetime of new development. PPS: Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1 provides policy advice for selecting suitable development sites. LPAs should take into account known physical and environmental constraints on the development of land, flood risk and stability, and take a precautionary approach to increases in risk that could arise as a result of likely changes to the climate (Paragraph 24)
3.4.10 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) (2007)
PPS3 sets out the Government’s strategic housing policy objectives. LPAs and stakeholders are required to establish criteria to be used in identifying the broad locations and specific sites for housing development, to address demand for the next 15 years. This would take into account the constraints of the physical environment and natural hazards, such as flooding, when identifying broad locations for housing development.
3.4.11 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS 25) (2010) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk - Practice Guide – Published 7 December 2009
PPS25 requires LPAs to consider flood risk and mitigation. All forms of flooding and their impact on the natural and built environment are material planning considerations; therefore future development should be discouraged in areas of highest risk. LPAs must prepare SFRAs that will contribute to the Sustainability Appraisal of their Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) and provide background information for all Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). (http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps25guideupdate)
Page 66 16 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
3.5 Regional Planning Policy
3.5.1 Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan – Managing flood risk (2009)
The Thames Region CFMP is a strategic planning document through which the Environment Agency will work with other stakeholders to identify and agree policies for long-term flood risk management over the next 50 to 100 years.
In the Thames Region, Harlow has a low risk of flooding (100 to 250 properties). Epping Forest District Council has a significantly higher risk where 2000 to 5000 properties are at risk of flooding annually.
The four main messages from the Thames CFMP are:
• Flood defences cannot be built to protect everything;
• Climate change will be the major cause of increased flood risk in the future;
• The floodplain is our most important asset in managing flood risk; and
• Development and urban regeneration provide a crucial opportunity to manage the risk
(http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GETH1209BQYL-e-e.pdf)
3.5.2 Rye Meads Water Cycle Strategy
A Water Cycle Study is a method of assessing what water resources are required and where and when they will be needed. It should address water resources and quality, potable water supply infrastructure, sewerage network capacity, wastewater treatment, flood risk and mitigation, and environmental opportunities. Relevant organisations, such as water companies and the EA, should be involved in early discussions regarding infrastructure requirements. The integrated approach should ensure that land allocations and development proposals make the best use of environmental capacity and opportunities, and adapt to environmental constraints.
The Rye Meads Strategy was prepared in response to the proposals for Harlow (and Stevenage) growth in the now revoked East of England Plan. The Rye Meads Wastewater Treatment Works will require substantial upgrades in future if the growth numbers envisaged by the EEP become a reality – this is obviously relevant for Harlow’s growth, including any urban extensions into Epping Forest District. The south of Epping Forest District (where the significant majority of that population lives) is served by the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in Barking, where it is understood that there is ample capacity for population growth.
Thames Water is responsible for potable water supply in most of the study area, and is satisfied that existing plans for asset management and development will cope with population increases until at least 2035.
3.6 Local Planning Policy
3.6.1 EFDC Local Plan (1998)
Page 67 17 3. Policy Framework
EFDC’s Local Plan and Alterations adopted in 2006 will remain the statutory plan until they are replaced by the core strategy and other LDF documents. The relevant current policies are:
U2A: Development in flood risk areas
Development proposals within the Environment Agency’s currently designed flood risk zones will be determined in accordance with a sequential approach as set out in PPG25. This will be, in order of priority:
(a) areas with little or no flood risk (b) areas of low to medium risk (c) areas of high risk (d) areas of functional flood plain.
In accordance with this order of priority, the Council will only permit development in areas of functional flood plain if:
(i) it involves use of land only, and would not increase flood risk or danger from flood risk; or (ii) it is proven to be essential infrastructure which cannot be located elsewhere. No such development will be allowed if it would cause any negative impacts on any part of the flood regime of the watercourse involved.
Development in high risk areas will only be allowed if:
(iii) there will be no increased risk of flooding either on site or elsewhere in the floodplain or suitable mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the scheme; and (iv) the development would not reduce the effectiveness of existing flood defence measures; and (v) there is no suitable alternative site available in the locality which is at a lower risk of flooding; and (vi) there will be no significant adverse effects upon a watercourse, navigable waterway or sewer; or (vii) adequate and appropriate flood-prevention measures to minimise the risk of flooding are incorporated as part of the development.
Development in all other flood risk areas will be allowed under this policy, provided that suitable flood minimisation and/or mitigation measures are included as part of the development. All applications or proposals for development in flood risk areas will be required to be accompanied by a flood risk assessment covering matters (i) to (v) above, to be carried out to the satisfaction of the Council and/or the Environment Agency.
U2B – Flood risk assessment zones
Within the flood risk assessment zones as shown on the alterations proposals map, flood risk assessments will be required for any development proposals (other than house extensions) which exceed 50m2. Outside these zones, a flood risk assessment will be required for any proposals which exceed 235m2.
U3A – Catchment effects
The council will not permit development which would result in either:
Page 68 18 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
(i) increased risk of flooding or a reduction in the effectiveness of existing flood defence measures, either on site or elsewhere within the catchment; or (ii) significant adverse effects upon a watercourse, navigable waterway or sewerage infrastructure;
Unless it is satisfied that adequate and appropriate attenuation measures, such that there is no increase in the risk of flooding, are incorporated as part of the development.
U3B – Sustainable drainage systems
In consultation with the Environment Agency and, where appropriate, sewerage undertakers, the council may require developments to include sustainable drainage systems to control the quality or attenuate the rate of surface water run-off. Contributions in the form of commuted sums may be sought in legal agreements to ensure that the drainage systems can be adequately maintained.
3.6.2 Replacement Harlow Local Plan (2006)
This was adopted in July 2006 and ran to 2009. The majority of policies have been saved by the Secretary of State to allow the plan to remain in force until 2012. The plan provides for over 2000 new dwellings and around 15 hectares of new employment land within the plan period.
The following is an extract from the Saved Adopted Replacement Harlow Local Plan which sets out both the preamble to Policy and Policy CP12.
It is Government’s policy to reduce the risks of flooding to people and the developed and natural environment. Flood risk should properly be taken into account in the planning of developments to reduce the risk of flooding and the damage that floods cause. Floodplains perform the essential function of storing water during flood events. Developments within the floodplain are not only at risk of flooding but by reducing the amount of land available for storage of floodwater, and by impeding flows, they can increase the risk of flooding off site. The Environment Agency has produced “indicative floodplain maps” that should be considered when developments are proposed in the town’s river corridors.
Areas liable to flood in the Harlow area are indicated on the Proposals Map. It is not considered that any development allocations in this Local Plan fall within a high or medium/low risk zone as indicated in PPG25. However, areas of Harlow are at risk of flooding, as shown on the Environment Agency’s indicative floodplain maps. Whilst these may not be defined as the areas to be developed in the Local Plan, any proposed developments in these areas shall only proceed in accordance with PPG25.
Development that will be at risk of flooding, or will CP12 contribute to flood risk or has an adverse impact on the river corridor will be resisted.
Page 69 19 3. Policy Framework
Development of green field sites usually results in an increase in the amount of impermeable land. Drains and sewers generally convey surface water from impermeable areas directly, or via a sewerage system, to a watercourse. This can alter the natural water cycle as rates and volumes of surface water reaching a watercourse generally increase. Surface water systems serving industrial, highway, residential or commercial schemes can result in pollution if prevention measures are not installed.
Sustainable drainage involves moving away from traditional piped drainage systems to softer engineering solutions that are closer to their natural drainage regimes. The control of surface water run-off should be as close to the origin as possible before it discharges to a watercourse or to the ground to achieve the following objectives of:
a) Reducing the flood risk from development within a river catchment; b) Minimising diffuse pollution arising from surface water runoff; c) Minimising environmental damage, e.g. bank erosion, and damage to habitats; d) Maintaining or restoring the natural flow regime of the receiving watercourse; e) Maintaining recharge to groundwater subject to minimising the risk of pollution to groundwater; f) Achieving environmental enhancements, including improvement to wildlife habitats, amenity and landscape quality.
Where risks are identified appropriate flow attenuation facilities or mitigation measures may be a prerequisite for development. Such problems can be reduced by the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) to control surface water run-off. Proposals should take account of water conservation and incorporate sustainable drainage systems within the design. This may include:
a) Minimising external hard surfaces and giving preference to permeable surfaces; b) Attenuation of runoff to mimic natural site conditions; c) Use of infiltration ponds, strips or swales; d) Grey water reuse; e) Improving the quality of run-off by means of reed beds or other methods; and f) Designs that improve the amenity and biodiversity in urban areas.
Major allocations are under construction including The Gateway Scheme which when complete will provide around 780 dwellings. Newhall to the east of the town will produce 750 houses.
Page 70 20 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
4. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
4.1 Overview
The main objective of this Level 1 SFRA is to collate all available information on all sources of flood risk within the study area. The data are then presented in a mapping format that allows the application of the Sequential Test for site allocations and where necessary will identify sites that require the Exception Test. It is the responsibility of the LPA to carry out these tests.
Throughout the data collection process emphasis has been placed on the use of existing data and information relating to flood risk in the study area. No new studies or investigations were commissioned for the benefit of this SFRA. As some data gaps have been indentified in certain areas, these should be investigated if a Level 2 SFRA is required.
The Environment Agency has been the primary source of data to inform this SFRA. Data were also sourced from Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Epping Forest District Council and Harlow Council. The collected data were then integrated into a GIS system and reviewed to establish baseline data sets and identify if any data were missing.
As a result of the data collection process, 13 large scale maps have been produced. The methodology of how these maps were produced and further details on data sources are outlined in the following paragraphs.
4.2 List of maps
Map 1 Watercourses, ponds, lakes, Main Rivers Map 2 Main River catchments Map 3 Historical flooding incidents Map 4 Flood Zones Map 5 Climate change Map 6 Areassusceptible tosurfacewaterflooding Map 7 Drift geology Map 8 Solid geology Map 9 Flood defences/structures Map 10 Emergency planning Map 11 Roads at risk of becoming impassable Map 12 EFDC Flood Risk Assessment Zones Map13 Soil types
4.3 List of data sources
Table 1 lists the data that have been analysed as part of this SFRA.
Table 1. SFRA data sources Information Source Main River map Environment Agency Flood Zones map Environment Agency Historic flood outlines Environment Agency Defence details taken from the National Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Defence Database
Page 71 21 4. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
(NFCDD) Lower Stort modelled levels and outputs Environment Agency Middle Roding Section 105 (Jacobs Environment Agency Gibb, 2003) Upper Roding Section 105 (Jacobs Gibb, Environment Agency 2003) Lee Hydrology and Mapping Study Environment Agency (Halcrow, 2007) Thames CFMP Environment Agency Areas susceptible to surface water Environment Agency flooding (see section 4.5 for details) Database of recorded groundwater Environment Agency incidents since 2001 Groundwater flooding reports Environment Agency Geology and soil GIS layers Environment Agency Flood defence details Environment Agency Flood Incident Databases EFDC and Harlow Location of flood defence assets Epping Forest District Council Location of ordinary watercourses Epping Forest District Council Location of roads at risk of becoming Epping Forest District Council impassable Ordnance Survey maps Epping Forest District Council Sewer flooding records Thames Water
4.4 Fluvial flooding
Rivers flood when the amount of water in them exceeds the flow capacity of the river channel and floodwater spills out of the banks into a floodplain. Land use, topography and the form of local development can have a strong influence on the velocity and volume of flood water and its flow direction at particular points. Flooding can occur when culverts and bridges are blocked by debris or when the capacity of channels is reduced (PPS25). Paragraph C4 in PPS25 expands on this explanation of fluvial flooding.
By identifying areas at risk of fluvial flooding the Flood Zone maps provide the basis for application of the Sequential Test by the LPA. The definitions of the Flood Zones from PPS25 are provided in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Flood Zone definitions from PPS25 Probability Flood Zone Definition of Flooding Flood Zone 1 At risk from flood event greater than the 1 in 1000 Low year event (greater than 0.1% annual probability) Probability Flood Zone 2 At risk from flood event between 1 in 100 and 1 in Medium 1000 year event (between 1% and 0.1% annual probability probability) Flood Zone 3a At risk from a flood event less than or equal to the High 1 in 100 year event (greater than 1% annual probability probability) Flood Zone 3b Land which would flood with an annual probability Functional Functional of 1 in 20 (5%) or greater in any year or is Floodplain Floodplain designed to flood in an extreme (0.1%) flood should provide a starting point for consideration to identify the functional floodplain.
Page 72 22 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
The Flood Zones are based on flood outlines that ignore the presence of defences, such as walls and embankments, except for the Functional Floodplain which does take into account the presence of defences. Ignoring the presence of defences allows consideration of residual risk to properties, should any of the defences fail.
Map 4 defines the geographical extents of Flood Zones 1, 2, 3a and 3b for the study region.
Flood Zone 3b – Functional Floodplain
Functional Floodplain Zone 3b is defined in PPS25 as those areas in which water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. Within this study Functional Floodplain has been defined by the following criteria:
• Land subject to flooding in the 1 in 20 year event; • Land which provides a function of flood conveyance or flood storage, through natural processes or through design (e.g. washlands, flood storage areas); • Areas which would naturally flood with an annual exceedence probability of 1 in 20 (5% Annual Exceedence Probability, AEP) or greater, but which are prevented from doing so by existing buildings, defences and other high flood risk management infrastructure will not normally be defined as Functional Floodplain.
The approach used to define the extent of Flood Zone 3b is summarised in Table 3 below. Note that the ‘defended outline’ is the extent of flooding taking into account the positive effect of flood defences, while the ‘undefended outline’ is the extent of flooding without taking into account flood defences.
Table 3. Flood Zone 3b data sources Watercourse Zone 3b Data source Lee 1 in 20 year defended outline from the River Lee Mapping & Hydrology Study (Halcrow, 2007) Roding 1 in 20 year defended outline from Middle/Upper Roding Section 105 (Jacobs Gibb 2003) Stort 1 in 20 year defended outline from Stort Strategy Model (Atkins 2004) and the 1993 and 2001 historic flood events. Other unmodelled 1993 and 2001 historic flood events (from EA) have tributaries been used for the whole study area as they are the worst two flood events in the last 20 years.
Detailed modelling is unavailable outside the Rivers Lee, Roding and Stort so the 1993 and 2001 flood extents have been used to identify the Functional Floodplain. The EA agreed that this was an acceptable approach for defining the Functional Floodplain. Whilst the EA could not provide annual probability or return periods for the historic events, the events are considered appropriate estimates of the Functional Floodplain extent.
Flood Zone 3a – High probability
The high probability Zone 3a is defined as those areas which are located within the undefended 1 in 100 (or 1% AEP) year flood extent. In the absence of detailed modelling for the 1 in 100 year flood extent, the EA has recommended the use of its national modelling of the 1 in 100 year extent to define Flood Zone 3a for this SFRA.
Page 73 23 4. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
The EA Flood Zone incorporates the most up-to-date modelling for the three major rivers, including data from the investigations in Table 4 below and the wider area JFLOW modelling. JFLOW is a two-dimensional dynamic flood model for simulation of overland flooding.
Table 4. Flood Zone 3a data sources Watercourse Zone 3a Data source Lee 1 in 100 year undefended outline from the River Lee Mapping & Hydrology Study (Halcrow, 2007) Roding 1 in 100 year undefended outline from Middle/Upper Roding Section 105 (Jacobs Gibb 2003) Stort 1 in 100 year undefended outline from the Harlow North SFRA modelling (Faber Maunsell, 2006) and 1 in 100 year undefended outline from the Stort Strategy Model (Atkins 2004) Other unmodelled JFLOW modelling tributaries
Flood Zone 2 – Medium probability
The medium probability Zone 2 is defined as those areas located between the undefended 1 in 1000 year (0.1% AEP) and 1 in 100 (1% AEP) flood extents. In agreement with the EA, its national scale modelled Flood Zone 2 defines the extent for this SFRA. The following investigations in Table 5 below, in addition to wider area JFLOW data, have been used by the EA to refine their Flood Zone for the respective rivers.
Table 5. Flood Zone 2 data sources Watercourse Zone 2 Data source Lee 1 in 1000 year undefended outline from the River Lee Mapping and Hydrology Study (Halcrow 2007) Stort 1 in 1000 year undefended outline from the Harlow North SFRA modelling (Faber Maunsell, 2006) Other unmodelled JFLOW modelling tributaries
Flood Zone 1 – Low probability
The low probability Zone 1 is defined as those areas which fall outside the undefended 1 in 1000 year flood extent. For this SFRA this includes all land that is outside of Zone 2 and Zone 3 flood risk areas.
It is important to note that for sites in Epping Forest and Harlow districts lying in Zone 1 and with a size greater than one hectare, it will still be necessary for a developer to produce a site-specific FRA which takes account of all sources of flooding, including surface water, groundwater and sewer sources.
Within Epping Forest District only, any development greater than 235m2 in Zone 1 will require a FRA. Further, development between 50 to 235m2 in Zone 1 will require a FRA at varying levels of detail if it falls within EFDC Flood Risk Assessment Zones. Refer to Section 6.2 for further details.
Flood Zone 3a/3b Climate Change
Page 74 24 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
It is important that developers take into account the possible change in flood risk over the lifetime of a development as a result of climate change. PPS25 recommends allowances for the increase in peak rainfall intensity and peak river flows in Table B.2. Further discussion on allowances for climate change can be seen in Section 4.10.
The approach used to define the extent of Zone 3a Climate Change in the study area was to use the 1 in 100 year + 20% defended flood outlines from the various studies listed in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Climate change Flood Zone 3a data sources Watercourse Zone 3a Climate Change Data source Lee 1 in 100 year + 20% defended outline from the River Lee Mapping & Hydrology Study (Halcrow, 2007) Roding 1 in 100 year + 20% defended outline from Middle/Upper Roding Section 105 (Jacobs Gibb 2003) Stort 1 in 100 year + 20% defended outline from the Harlow North SFRA modelling (Faber Maunsell, 2006) Other unmodelled Not modelled – no data available tributaries
The approach used to define the extent of Zone 3b Climate Change (Functional Floodplain) was to assume that the current Zone 3a (1 in 100 year) would become Zone 3b under climate change. This is generally accepted as the best practicable solution for estimating climate change for the Functional Floodplain when no other modelling data exist. This technique is used by other local authorities in their SFRAs. The data sources used in this approach are listed in Table 7 below.
Table 7. Climate change Flood Zone 3b data sources Watercourse Zone 3b Climate Change Data source Lee 1 in 100 year defended outline from the River Lee Mapping & Hydrology Study (Halcrow, 2007) Roding 1 in 100 year defended outline from Middle/Upper Roding Section 105 (Jacobs Gibb 2003) Stort 1 in 100 year defended outline from the Harlow North SFRA modelling (Faber Maunsell, 2006) Other unmodelled Not modelled – no data available tributaries
Given the inherent uncertainty over the extent of the climate change for Flood Zone 2, no additional mapping has been undertaken.
Map 5 shows the effect of climate change on the Flood Zones 3a and 3b.
Note that climate change maps are produced by means of hydraulic modelling studies which take account of the presence of flood defences and other structures. They therefore differ from Flood Zone maps which are based on undefended modelling to reflect residual risk. For this reason Flood Zones and climate change impacts have been mapped separately for the purposes of this SFRA.
Also note that there are limited data available for mapping climate change variations for this SFRA and therefore only the major rivers have been mapped. Individual site- specific investigations will need to be completed for tributaries and minor watercourses.
Page 75 25 4. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
4.5 Surface water flooding
Surface water or pluvial flooding generally occurs when intensive rainfall, often of short duration, is unable to soak into the ground or to be safely passed away from the site. Water then flows over land causing localised ponding or flooding, before entering drainage or sewer systems. Paragraph C6 in PPS25 provides a fuller explanation of surface water flooding.
Surface water flooding incidents are generally related to the performance of the existing drainage infrastructure, with lack of maintenance and inadequate capacity often major causes of flooding. In rural areas surface water drains tend to be simple isolated systems, often linked with Essex County Council (ECC) Highways drainage discharging to open ditches alongside the road. Lack of maintenance, leading to blocked or silted up rural drainage systems, is often sited as one of the main causes of localised surface water flooding in rural areas.
In urban areas surface water drainage systems are a combination of gullies, gully leads, adopted surface water sewers (often owned by utilities companies) and ECC Highways drainage. An increase in the impermeability of urban areas over time has led to many surface water drainage systems being unable to cope adequately and an increased frequency of surface water flooding.
Map 3 shows the location of recorded surface water flooding incidents, based on the Councils’ Flood Incident Databases up to 2007. The map shows a wide distribution of surface water flooding incidents throughout the study area, however the majority of incidents occur within the urban areas.
Cautionary note: The Council databases will only contain those instances when assistance was sought. Incidents not reported to the drainage team are not included within the databases.
A significant event occurred in June and July 2006 when severe weather conditions hit Harlow which caused flash flooding as a result of torrential rain and insufficient capacity within the drainage network to deal with the volume of water. The first storm in June 2006 was a 1 in 70-year event and affected 73 properties. The second in July 2006 was a 1 in 80 year event and affected 65 properties. On both occasions there were less than 2 hours warning of the impending storm.
These floods were ostensibly caused by problems with, and maintenance of, drainage systems in the town, and not directly attributable to fluvial flooding. The Council along with other responsible agencies have set out a plan of action to reduce the likelihood of this happening again.
Map 6 shows EA information on Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding. The map carries a heavy disclaimer from the EA and this should be referred to before any assumptions are made from the data. The map shows areas but is not suitable for identifying individual properties that are susceptible to surface water flooding. A site specific flood risk assessment would be required to determine that level of detail.
4.6 Groundwater flooding
Groundwater flooding occurs when water levels in the ground rise above surface elevations. It is most likely to occur in low-lying areas underlain by permeable rocks (aquifers) (PPS25). Paragraph C7 in PPS25 expands on this definition.
Page 76 26 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Groundwater flooding also occurs where permeable strata lie on top of and are surrounded by impermeable strata. A ‘perched water table’ develops in the permeable strata and groundwater flow at the surface is often seen at the boundary of the permeable and impermeable strata. A number of channels of the drainage system throughout Epping Forest district have such groundwater ‘spring fed’ flow at their head. Groundwater fed springs can migrate due to a number of factors including seasonal variability and man-made interventions (such as foundation and basement construction) in the ground. Care should be taken in the use of infiltration drainage systems in areas where the suitable permeable strata are of geographically limited extent as it may contribute to groundwater flooding nearby.
Groundwater flooding is known to occur around Nazeing in Epping Forest District associated with outcrops of the highly permeable Lambeth Group sands and the Kesgrave Sands and Gravels. Water abstraction from these Units may have helped keep groundwater levels historically low and the ceasing of abstraction from a number of boreholes locally could cause levels to rise.
Groundwater flooding has not been a significant issue in Harlow.
Maps 7 and 8 give an indication of the geology throughout the study area and this in turn can give an indication of the likelihood of groundwater flooding.
4.7 Sewer flooding
In urban areas, rainwater is commonly drained into surface water sewers or sewers containing both surface and waste water known as “combined sewers”. Flooding can result when the sewer is overwhelmed by heavy rainfall, becomes blocked or is of inadequate capacity, and will continue until the water drains away. Paragraph C8 in PPS25 further expands on this explanation.
The adopted foul and surface water sewer network is extensive in urban areas and less so for rural areas, although a greater extent of the study area is covered by adopted foul water drains operating independently of surface water systems. Thames Water Utilities (TWU) is the sewerage undertaker for Epping Forest and Harlow. There are also areas of large private sewer networks within the study area.
Historical flooding from drainage and sewerage infrastructure in the study area has been identified from Thames Water data. The data received were provided at postcode level, hence no street level information on flooding was available and therefore the use of this data for spatial planning is limited. The total number of properties flooded from overloaded sewers from 1997 to 2007 was recorded. This was further divided into the number of properties flooded by surface water, foul water and combined sewers. Some of these postcode areas straddle the boundaries of the district and some of the properties may well be outside the district boundaries. Because of the difficulty of precisely locating the sewer flooding incidents, they have not been mapped as part of this study.
Map 3 identifies the locations of 57 historic sewer flooding incidents recorded in the Council Flood Incident Databases (see cautionary note in section 4.5 above).
4.8 Flood infrastructure and artificial sources of flooding
Flood defence infrastructure and manmade structures can be overwhelmed or fail for various reasons and lead to flooding. Non-natural sources of flooding can include
Page 77 27 4. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment reservoirs, canals and lakes where water is retained above natural ground level. Flooding from artificial sources can often occur suddenly and without warning, resulting in fast flowing, deep water that can cause significant threat to life and damage to property. Paragraph C9 in PPS25 provides further information on artificial sources of flooding.
The EA has provided a GIS layer of the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD), listing details of flood defences and structures. The NFCDD is intended to give a reasonable indication of asset condition and should not be considered to contain detailed and accurate data (this would be undertaken as part of a Stage 2 SFRA where the need arises).
Map 9 shows the location of flood defences within the study area (some identified from the NFCDD) along with the location of storm grilles maintained by EFDC and the Environment Agency.
In addition, Map 9 shows areas that are provided a degree of protection against flooding from dedicated flood defences and are referred to as Areas Benefiting from Defences (ABDs) by the Environment Agency. It is essential to realise that defences do not fully remove the risk of flooding to a property and this is discussed in more detail in section 4.9 below.
Map 1 depicts all permanent watercourses and water bodies within the study area. The areas shaded blue in the map are taken from the Ordnance Survey Mastermap. Map 1 also shows Main Rivers coloured red. Note that there are several bodies of standing water, including several fishing lakes, which may also be potential artificial sources of flooding.
4.8.1 Epping Forest District
As a result of a long history of flooding, EFDC has either on its own (at North Weald 1989 and 1993) or in conjunction with the EA (at Loughton 1995 and Thornwood 1997) carried out construction of a series of flood alleviation schemes, all of which include significant flood storage reservoirs (FSR). In addition, within the district there are over 1000 kilometres of watercourses and 62 storm grilles/trash screens overseen either by EFDC or the EA (further details in Appendix 1). The following paragraphs detail the flood defence infrastructure within the District.
Loughton Brook (Staples Road) Flood Storage Reservoir (Design Standard of Protection – 1 in 75 years) was completed in December 1995. It was built to protect Loughton Town centre from flash flooding from the forested catchment area of the Loughton Brook. The reservoir is formed by an earth embankment 140 metres long varying in height from 0 to 8 metres. A reinforced grass overtoppable section 50 metres long acts as a spillway for storms of an intensity greater than was designed for. The pond will store a maximum 47,200 cubic metres of water during the design 1 in 75 year event. The discharge from this pond is controlled by a penstock within a chamber accessed from the top of the embankment. Water level within the reservoir is continuously monitored via a telemetry system.
The pond is located within the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation and as such the landowner is the City of London Corporation (Conservators of Epping Forest). The reservoir undertaker is the Environment Agency.
Thornwood Brook Flood Storage Reservoir (Design Standard of Protection – 1 in 100 years) was completed in 1998 as part of a two reservoir scheme to protect the
Page 78 28 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment village of Thornwood from flash flooding. The reservoir, situated at the end of Carpenters Arms Lane on the Thornwood Common Brook, is owned and operated by Epping Forest District Council.
The reservoir is formed by a 150 metre long earth embankment, which has a maximum height of 1.8 metres. The reservoir will store a maximum 14,350 cubic metres of water during the design event. The discharge from the reservoir is controlled by a penstock to ensure that the downstream watercourse can accommodate these flows and minimise the risks for residents. Water level within the reservoir is continuously monitored via a telemetry system.
The area of Thornwood Common Brook is managed by EFDC Engineering, Drainage and Water Team (EDWT) in consultation with Countrycare (the Council’s countryside management service) to maintain its biodiversity and has now been designated as a Local Nature Reserve.
Cripsey Brook Flood Storage Reservoir, Thornwood (Design Standard of Protection – 1 in 100 years) is situated at the junction of Woodside and Duck Lane in the village of Thornwood and was constructed as part of the same flood alleviation scheme as the Thornwood Brook FSR in 1998. The land is owned by the City of London Corporation (Conservators of Epping Forest). All the flood alleviation structures are managed and operated by the Environment Agency.
Other Flood Alleviation Scheme Works in Thornwood (Design Standard of Protection – 1 in 100 years) downstream of the two reservoirs comprise three culverts located at Woodside, Brookfield (the Old Council Depot), Weald Hall Lane and Weald Hall Place. Of these the culverts at Woodside and Brookfield are owned by Essex County Council and the Weald Hall Place culvert is on privately owned land but operated by Epping Forest District Council.
Church Lane Flood Storage Reservoir, North Weald (Design Standard of Protection – 1 in 50 years) was completed in 1990 to protect North Weald from flooding from the North Weald Brook. It consists of a gravity bypass pipe diversion from an offtake structure at Station Road, running along Church Lane and discharging to the North Weald Brook downstream of the village and a flood storage reservoir with a large twin piped inlet structure at Church Lane to delay the passage of the water until the flows in the North Weald Brook subside.
The flood storage area was formed by basin excavation and some earth embankment to form an oval depression for the temporary storage of floodwater. The reservoir will store a maximum 38,000 cubic metres of water during the design event. The flood storage area is owned and operated by Epping Forest District Council. EFDC Countrycare manages the area of the reservoir very successfully (in conjunction with EDWT) and many rare and unusual wild flowers are now flourishing at the site. Church Lane Flood Storage Reservoir has been classified as a Local Nature Reserve. The bypass culvert is managed by the Environment Agency.
Thornhill Flood Storage Reservoirs, North Weald (Design Standard of Protection – 1 in 75 years, however effectively reduced to 1 in 50 years as online with Church Lane FSR) were completed in 1995 to protect North Weald from flooding caused by water running off the higher ground that used to be the Ongar Radio Station.
New ditches and culverts were excavated and two storage ponds were constructed to the rear of Emberson Way and east of the Village Hall. Both of these ponds are accessed for maintenance via the private road adjacent to the Village Hall.
Page 79 29 4. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
The outlet pipe from the southern pond discharges into the North Weald Brook near the Village Hall. The discharge from these ponds is controlled by penstocks to ensure that the downstream watercourses can accommodate these flows and minimise the risks for residents. The two ponds in combination are capable of storing 6,300 cubic metres of water. The northern pond was formed by excavation and the material excavated was used to construct a small earth embankment across a valley to form the southern pond. The pond sites are owned and operated by Epping Forest District Council. EFDC Countrycare advise EDWT on environmental aspects and the sites are now designated as Local Nature Reserves.
The channel improvement works were constructed on private land. As the watercourses are Main Rivers, the EA maintains the trash screens covering the inlets to the culverted sections.
Upshire Flood Alleviation Scheme, Waltham Abbey (Design standard of protection 1 in 50 years) was constructed by the EA in 2009-10. The scheme has been designed to reduce flooding from Cobbins Brook to properties in Waltham Abbey. The flood storage area is made up of an earth embankment and upstream storage area. The site is operated and maintained by the EA.
Epping Forest District Council Trash Screens (Storm grilles)
The council owns or maintains a network of 62 trash screens in a split role with the EA. The EA is responsible for 12 grilles on Main Rivers. Most are inclined metal grilles located within the headwall structures at the upstream (inlet) end of critical culverts associated with Flood Alleviation Schemes, Main Rivers, the Ordinary Watercourse network and watercourses that have known flood risk. They are designed to collect large debris and prevent blockage within the culvert itself. The council or EA clears accumulated debris on a monthly or bi-monthly basis dependent on need and after any storm event if required. Refer to Appendix 1 for a full list of storm grilles and the party responsible for clearance.
The assets maintained by the council and EA are located on land owned by the council or common land, or were built by the council on privately owned under its permissive powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991. In addition to the trash screens maintained by the council there may be others in private ownership, the maintenance responsibility for which would rest with the riparian owner.
4.8.2 Harlow
The River Stort has defences along the north and south banks stretching from Honeymead Marsh to Harlow Mill and beyond towards Sawbridgeworth. From Fiddlers Brook west towards the Moorhen the defences are on the south bank. They surround the Moorhen public house and marina (although there is known flooding in this area, particularly the pub car park and Burnt Mill Lane). Defences continue along the north bank of the navigation to Parndon Lock where the navigation meets the river again.
4.9 Residual risk
Paragraph G1 of PPS25 describes residual risk as the risks remaining after applying the sequential approach and taking mitigating actions. PPS25 continues to state that it is the responsibility of those planning development to fully assess flood risk, propose measures to mitigate it and demonstrate that any residual risks can be
Page 80 30 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment safely managed. Flood resistance and resilience measures should not be used to justify development in inappropriate locations.
It is important to realise that flood defences do not completely eliminate the risk of flooding and there will always be a residual risk of flooding. Residual risk can arise due to (but is not limited to):
• the failure of infrastructure, such as a breach or blockage; or
• an extreme flood event that exceeds the design standard of the structure and leads to overtopping; or
• the uncertainties inherent in the prediction of flooding.
Residual risk can in some instances be managed by regular maintenance and inspections, for example by regularly clearing trash screens as part of an existing maintenance regime. However other risks such as overtopping or extreme rainfall events require further consideration. The actual level of residual risk will vary from location to location based on the proximity to the breach or overtopping location, flow routes, water velocity and depth.
Map 9 shows Areas Benefiting from Defences (ABDs) within the two districts. ABDs data come from the Environment Agency and are based on the areas that would flood should infrastructure fail to perform its purpose. Whilst protected from some level of flooding, these areas still have a residual risk and are considered more vulnerable than areas not at risk from flooding and would benefit from additional protection. Where developments are at risk of flooding either flood resilience or resistance measures may need to be adopted. Paragraphs G6-10 in PPS25 provide more information on flood resilience and resistance measures.
4.10 Climate change
It is important that developers take into account the possible change in flood risk over the lifetime of a development as a result of climate change. PPS25 indicates that a 20% increase in peak river flows may see only negligible changes to inundation extents in well defined floodplains, but dramatic changes in very flat areas. However, changes in the depth of flooding under the same allowance will reduce the return period of a given flood. This means that a site currently located within a lower risk zone could in future be re-classified as lying within a higher risk zone. This in turn could have implications for the type of development that is appropriate according to its vulnerability to flooding.
Climate change will also potentially increase the frequency and intensity of localised storms over the district. This may worsen local drainage problems and lead to increases in surface water flooding. It is therefore important that any site specific Flood Risk Assessments take into account climate change.
PPS25 recommends allowances for the increase in peak rainfall intensity and peak river flows in Table B.2. EFDC and Harlow Council require that these allowances are taken into account in any calculations in site specific FRAs. It is vital that future climate change is considered in any assessment of flood risk.
Map 5 shows the effect of climate change on the Flood Zones 3a and 3b.
Page 81 31 5. Emergency Planning
5. Emergency Planning
5.1 Critical infrastructure
Emergency planning and critical infrastructure data were collected in relation to three main aspects: the location of vulnerable institutions, roads at risk of becoming impassable in a flood event and Environment Agency Flood Warning systems (telemetry sites). These data have been identified in Maps 10 and 11 to enable emergency planners to identify locations where critical infrastructure is exposed to significant flood risk.
Table 8. Emergency Planning Infrastructure (as at Jan 2008) [includes data from Harlow] Flood Flood Flood Flood Infrastructure Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3a Zone 3b Sewage works 7 1 Hospitals 2 Doctors Surgeries 30 2 Sheltered Housing Schemes 9 Fire Stations 6 Care Homes 28 1 EFDC Emergency Rest Centre 42 5 2 2 Schools 42 1 Police stations 17 3 Grouped Dwelling Schemes 4 1 AmbulanceStations 6 1 Telephone Exchanges 6
Table 8 shows the distribution of selected emergency planning and infrastructure sites in relation to Environment Agency Flood Zones. Most of the sites here are defined in the PPS25 Vulnerability Classification as ‘Highly Vulnerable’ and ‘More Vulnerable’ (see PSS25 Table D2) and would not be permitted in high flood risk zones (3a/3b). The table shows a relatively small percentage of critical infrastructure is located in the high risk Flood Zones. This information has been mapped in Map 10.
A review of Map 11 showing the roads likely to be impassable shows that the main transport links are generally unaffected, except in the most extreme flood events (probabilities less than 1% or greater than 1 in 100 year return periods). Impassable roads have been identified and mapped based on historical incidents and areas where the fluvial Flood Zones overlap roads.
The A414, the main east-west thoroughfare, is potentially impassable during a large (1 in 100 year) event at Chipping Ongar. Roads in close proximity to the River Roding and its tributaries are also likely to be impassable during extreme events. Historically, Nazeing and Waltham Abbey have also had problems with impassable roads, including areas being cut off by flooding in 2000.
5.2 Flood warning
The EA provides a Flood Warning service for areas in the district along the River Lee and River Roding and their tributaries. The EA monitors rainfall and river levels continuously and issues warnings where appropriate to assist in preparedness for flood events.
Page 82 32 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
It is recommended that those people living within Flood Warning areas sign up to the EA Flood Warning Direct service for advanced flood warnings. For more information on Flood Warning Areas, refer to the EA website.
The Flood Warning Area extents can be seen in Map 10.
Page 83 33 6. Development Guidance
6. Development Guidance
6.1 Requirements for site specific Flood Risk Assessment
A SFRA is a strategic level document that provides an outline of flood risk. A site specific FRA will be required for most forms of development with the detail being appropriate to the scale of the development and risk of flooding at the site.
PPS25 states that planning applications for development proposals of one hectare or greater in Flood Zone 1 and all proposals for new development located in Flood Zones 2 and 3 should be accompanied by a FRA. In addition, Epping Forest District Council has specific Local Plan policies that may require proposed development falling outside the PPS25 FRA requirements to also submit a FRA. It is the duty of the developer to provide this information in support of a planning application or planning condition. Refer to section 6.2 below for further details.
The aim of a FRA is to demonstrate that proposed development will not be at risk of flooding and will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. This includes assessment of mitigation measures required to safely manage flood risk. The FRA also needs to demonstrate that the proposed development will not increase flood risk either upstream or downstream of the site. All sources of flood risk, including surface water runoff, flash flooding and drainage need to be considered. The developer should seek an improvement of overall flood risk to the site and surrounding area and the FRA can be used to demonstrate this.
All proposed development sites require an initial assessment of flood risk. Annex E of PPS25 describes the minimum requirements for a FRA and the PPS25 Practice Guide companion provides further advice. The Environment Agency also provides useful advice on producing a FRA and its current standing advice should be referred to. As well as being proportionate to the degree of risk, a FRA must be appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the development, consider all forms of flood risk, and take into account the impacts of climate change.
Both the Exception Test and Annex E of PPS25 require that a FRA demonstrates that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. This SFRA classifies safe as a dry access route above the 1 in 100 year plus climate change flood level to and from any residential development and finished floor levels set at least 300mm above this level. To achieve this without increasing flood risk elsewhere, it must be demonstrated that there will be no loss of flood storage and that overland flow routes will not be obstructed. Where access and egress are potential issues, this should be discussed with the LPA and Environment Agency at the earliest stage.
As part of any FRA it may be necessary to calculate volumes and discharge rates of runoff from the site that would be generated by the development. Where this is greater than greenfield runoff from the undeveloped site, in order to prevent increased flood risk downstream it may be necessary to store excess water within the site and discharge it slowly at the greenfield rate. The volume of storage, limiting flow rates and method of storm water detention should be outlined in the FRA. Attenuation storage should be provided to cope with the 1 in 100 year event (plus climate change). EFDC requires calculations on runoff rates, including the greenfield rate, for all development greater than 50m2.
Page 84 34 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Re-development of existing sites offers an opportunity to improve the existing runoff regime and reduce flood risk. As far as reasonably practical, maximum runoff rates should be limited to greenfield runoff rates and on-site attenuation utilised as required. As a minimum requirement, the proposed discharge rate should be an improvement on the existing rate.
Chapter 4 of CIRIA C697 The SuDS Manual provides an excellent discussion on the estimation of greenfield runoff rates and volumes. Refer to this for further details on methods of calculation.
6.2 Development within Epping Forest District and EFDC Flood Risk Assessment Zones
Built development will normally increase the area of impermeable ground, meaning water will run off rather than percolate into the ground. Unless carefully sited and designed, the additional surface water run-off (within or outside areas at risk from flooding) can lead to an increased risk of flooding downstream. Damage to, or erosion of, the receiving watercourse can also occur, caused by silt deposition or increased pollutant loads from the increased volume of water and changes to the pattern of flows
Due to a history of flooding within the district, EFDC has taken a proactive approach to reduce flood risk by incorporating stringent policies within the Local Plan (see section 3.6.1). The Council has attempted to minimise the cumulative effect of many minor developments within the district which in combination contribute significantly to increased overall runoff. Consequently, Chapter 14 of the Epping Forest Local Plan Alterations July 2006 deals with flood risk within the district. Of particular reference is Policy U2B (see 3.6.1) which defines Flood Risk Assessment Zones where a FRA may be required for smaller development.
Flood Risk Assessment Zones (FRAZs) are catchments of ordinary watercourses which have been identified by the Council. These may contribute to main river watercourses or where there is a known risk or history of flooding. Map 12 shows the location of the FRAZs. In some instances, FRAZs fall within EA Flood Zone 1 and a FRA will be required for developments less than one hectare in size, whereas this is not a requirement of PPS25.
To enforce Policy U2B, where appropriate, planning conditions requiring a FRA are attached to planning permissions. The size of the development will determine the detail required in the FRA. The following can be used as a rough guide as to whether a FRA will be necessary and the level of detail:
• For development of less than 50m2 impermeable area, a FRA is not required;
• For development of between 50 – 100m2 impermeable area, within a FRAZ, a surface water drainage assessment and maintenance details will need to be submitted. Compliance with the principles of SuDS should be demonstrated;
• For development of between 100 – 235m2 impermeable area, within a FRAZ, a FRA and Management and Maintenance plan will need to be submitted. The assessment shall demonstrate that adjacent properties shall not be subject to increased flood risk and, dependent upon the capacity of the receiving drainage, shall include calculations of any increased storm run-off and the necessary on-site detention;
Page 85 35 6. Development Guidance
• For development over 235m2 impermeable area, a full FRA and Management and Maintenance plan will need to be submitted. The assessment will need to include calculations of the greenfield runoff rate, increased run-off rates and the associated volume of storm detention. The general principles for a FRA listed in Annex E of PPS25 should be used as a minimum requirement.
A reduction in the cumulative impacts of multiple minor developments is the rationale behind Policy U2B and a FRA submitted to the Council as a requirement of a condition should clearly assess surface water runoff and the appropriate mitigation. In particular, calculation of runoff rates and volumes should be provided and surface water attenuation should be discussed in detail. Where calculations are provided, the greenfield runoff rate should also be provided (as discussed in section 6.1 above). Any FRA submitted should meet the minimum requirements in PPS25.
6.3 SuDS – Sustainable Drainage Systems
SuDS is a term used to describe the various approaches that can be used to manage surface water drainage in a way that mimics the natural environment. The management of surface water is considered an essential element of reducing future flood risk to both the site and its surroundings. Indeed reducing the rate of discharge from urban sites to greenfield runoff rates is one of the most effective ways of reducing and managing flood risk and reversing the effects of previously ill-planned development. The integration of SuDS into a site design can also provide broader benefits, including a significant improvement in the quality of runoff discharged from the site, the capture and re-use of site runoff for irrigation and/or non potable uses, and the provision of green space areas offering recreation and/or aesthetic benefits.
Both EFDC and Harlow Council strongly encourage the principles of SuDS on all forms of development. This is particularly important for development sites that lie within FRAZs, including minor development and building extensions. The developer should seek the most sustainable SuDS solution in order to reduce flood risk, improve water quality and improve the environment overall.
There are numerous different ways that SuDS can be incorporated into a development and the most commonly found components of a SuDS are described in the following table. The appropriate application of a SuDS to a specific development is heavily dependent upon the topography and geology of the site (and its surrounds). Careful consideration of the site characteristics must be undertaken to ensure the future sustainability of the drainage system.
Table 9. Common SuDS methods Pervious surfaces Surfaces that allow inflow of rainwater into the underlying construction or soil. Green roofs Vegetated roofs that reduce the volume and rate of runoff and remove pollution. Filter drain Linear drains consisting of trenches filled with a permeable material, often with a perforated pipe in the base of the trench to assist drainage, to store and conduct water; they may also permit infiltration. Filter strips Vegetated areas of gently sloping ground designed to drain water evenly off impermeable areas and to filter out silt and other particulates. Swales Shallow vegetated channels that conduct and retain water,
Page 86 36 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
and may also permit infiltration; the vegetation filters particulate matter. Basins, Ponds and Areas that may be utilised for surface runoff storage. Wetlands Infiltration Devices Sub-surface structures to promote the infiltration of surface water to ground. They can be trenches, basins or soakaways. Bioretention areas Vegetated areas designed to collect and treat water before discharge via a piped system or infiltration to the ground
Underground cellular storage can also be accepted in some circumstances for storage and attenuation of runoff, however there remains the issue of ongoing maintenance responsibility.
Attenuation measures to reduce peak flows or hold back surface water run-off include storage areas (surface or underground) and, where ground conditions permit, infiltration areas or soak ways. In catchment terms, any reduction in the amount of water that originates from any given site is likely to be small. But if applied across the catchment in a consistent way, the cumulative affect of a number of sites could be significant.
Careful consideration needs to be made of the future management of any SuDS features proposed. Each SuDS feature has its own implications with regards to ongoing maintenance, public health and safety and removal and disposal of any entrained waste. Full details of maintenance and management will need to be provided for most developments to show that this has been taken into consideration. As noted in para 3.4.7 above, the County Council as SuDS Approving Body will be responsible for adopting and maintaining systems which have been approved and which serve more than one property.
While various SuDS have been outlined above, it is important to note that infiltration drainage is generally not advisable within the EFDC area due to the highly impermeable nature of most of the underlying geology. This precludes the use of soakaways and some other SuDS techniques in most areas of Epping Forest District. A soil investigation should be undertaken at an early stage for all infiltration methods to ensure that the soil at the site is suitable. Map 13 provides an overview of the soil types within the study area and can be used as a starting point for initial scoping of the suitability of various types of SuDS. Also refer to section 2.2.1.
There are a number of publications available where SuDS design is considered in detail, including Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) publications C697 The SuDS manual, C698 Site handbook for the construction of SuDS and C609B Sustainable drainage systems, hydraulic, structural and water quality advice. In addition PPS25 and its Practice Guide companion and EA publications “SuDS An introduction” and “SuDS A guide for developers” are useful starting points.
EFDC holds a record of most SuDS proposed and installed based on information in planning applications.
Page 87 37 7. Recommendations
7. Recommendations
7.1 Climate Change • The location, layout and vulnerability of appropriate new development schemes, and all associated flood risk, surface water, resilience, safety and related assessments should make full allowance for the potential impact of climate change over the lifetime of the development. The advice of the Environment Agency should be sought to ensure that the most up-to-date guidance is being used.
7.2 Functional floodplain/flood alleviation and storage schemes • The functional floodplain and sites identified for flood storage or alleviation should be protected from future development; • Opportunities should be sought to reinstate as floodplain any areas which have been developed through removal, re-design or relocation of buildings and other structures, and this could include land swapping; • In Areas Benefiting from Defences (ABDs), attention should be paid to the provision of additional protection measures. Where new development is permitted, this must include appropriate resilience and resistance features, and mitigation measures including evacuation plans to address residual risk; • Permissions for riverside developments should, subject to consultation with appropriate agencies, include provision for developer contributions for refurbishment of assets such as bridges, culverts, walls etc to ensure safety during the lifetime of the development; • New development should be set back from rivers, with a minimum 8 metre wide undeveloped buffer strip to help attenuate flood waters and allow for maintenance works; • New development should not involve new, or building over existing, culverts; • Opportunities to enhance or restore a river corridor should be identified in appropriate applications – eg de-culverting etc. The design of flood storage areas should also take into account the potential for other land uses. Enhancement schemes and appropriate uses include informal recreation and wildlife habitat creation and conservation.
7.3 Other forms of flooding • Groundwater flooding will continue to be assessed and methods of mitigation will be investigated; • Surface Water Management Plans should be prepared for areas with known surface water drainage problems; • Multi-agency working should be encouraged and supported to improve the management of surface water drainage.
7.4 Site allocations • The Sequential Test will be used to try to ensure that development sites are located in areas with the lowest risk of flooding, giving highest priority to Flood Zone 1; • If a requirement to apply the Exception Test occurs (ie when insufficient sites in zones of lower flood risk are available), a Level 2 SFRA of potential sites should be undertaken by a suitably qualified engineer to allow timely input to the LDF process.
Page 88 38 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
7.5 Development proposals • Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs) are required for all proposals in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and for developments greater than 1 ha in Flood Zone 1 (see also section 6.1 of the SFRA); • Where appropriate, FRAs should also be undertaken for other forms of flooding; • Epping Forest Council has designated extensive areas as Flood Risk Assessment Zones, and within these areas FRAs will also be required as explained in Policy U2B of the Local Plan Alterations (2006); • Development proposals will be expected to show a reduction in flood risk onsite and, where appropriate, elsewhere within the catchment. The reduction of runoff to the greenfield runoff rate should be promoted for both greenfield and brownfield sites. Policies should encourage 1 in 100 year (plus climate change impact) attenuation; • All new development greater than one hectare in size should be required to match greenfield runoff rates, with 1 in 100 year (plus climate change impact) attenuation being mandatory; • In appropriate cases, developer contributions should be sought for flood risk management measures, including alleviation, storage and related environmental enhancement; • A sequential approach should be used to locate elements of development according to vulnerability and risk of flooding (eg open space for informal recreation in low-lying waterside areas); • Safety and resilience should be integral to the overall design of a site (eg dry pedestrian routes to and from residential developments which do not cross the 1 in 100 year (plus climate change) floodplain; liaison with Emergency Planning to assess emergency vehicle access). The same applies to individual buildings – eg finished floor levels should be 300mm above the 1 in 100 year plus climate change flood level; • Space should be specifically set aside for SuDS, which will be a requirement for all appropriate new development and used to inform the overall site layout. The drainage systems must be appropriate for local soil and geology conditions; • Opportunities should be pursued to retrofit SuDS in known problem areas, with developer contributions where appropriate; • In areas at risk of flooding, undercroft or ground floor parking will be preferred to habitable rooms at ground floor level. Restrictions may apply to the provision of ground floor bedrooms; • The construction of habitable basements in areas at risk of flooding will be discouraged.
7.6 Emergency planning/risk awareness • The Council’s Emergency Plan should be reviewed and updated where required on the basis of the main findings of this SFRA. Any other plans dealing with safe evacuation and access for emergency services during times of flooding for existing and proposed development should also be reviewed; • Critical infrastructure located in flood zones or other areas of known flooding should be assessed to ensure that there are adequate procedures for access and evacuation; • Alternative routes for use in emergency situations should be identified; • In relation to areas identified as being at risk of flooding, the location of vulnerable development and critical infrastructure such as roads should be considered in detail;
Page 89 39 7. Recommendations
• The two Councils should work with the Environment Agency to promote greater public awareness of flood risk and to encourage more people to sign up to the Flood Warning Direct services provided by the EA.
7.7 Monitoring
• The SFRA is a “living” document which will need to be reviewed on a regular basis as updated data and policy guidance become available. Officers believe that a two-yearly review would be appropriate.
Page 90 40 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
8. Abbreviations and Glossary
Disclaimer: The following abbreviations and glossary are for general assistance to the reader and are not intended for detailed legal interpretation.
ADAS Agricultural and Development Advisory Service CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan CIRIA Contstruction Industry Research and Information Association DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EA Environment Agency EFDC Epping Forest District Council FRA Flood Risk Assessment FRAZ Flood Risk Assessment Zone LDD Local Development Document LDF Local Development Framework LPA Local Planning Authority NFCDD National Flood and Coastal Defence Database PPS25 Planning Policy Statement 25 SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems
Adoption of Sewers The transfer of responsibility for the maintenance of sewers to a sewerage undertaker.
Annual exceedence probability The estimated probability of a flood of a given magnitude occurring or being exceeded in any year, usually expressed as 1 in 100 chance or 1%.
Antecedent conditions The condition of a catchment area at the start of a rainfall event.
Aquifer A source of groundwater comprising water-bearing rock, sand or gravel capable of yielding significant quantities of water.
Attenuation Reduction of peak flow and increase of the duration of a flow event.
Baseflow The portion of streamflow that comes from groundwater and not surface runoff.
Brownfield site Any land or site that has been previously developed.
Catchment The area contributing runoff or baseflow to a particular point on a watercourse.
Catchment Flood Management Plan A high-level planning strategy through which the Environment Agency works with other key decision-makers within a river catchment to identify and agree policies to secure the long-term sustainable management of flood risk.
Climate change Long term variations in global temperature and weather patterns both natural and as a result of human activity, primarily greenhouse gas emissions.
Page 91 41 8. Abbreviations and Glossary
Culvert Covered channel or pipe that forms a watercourse below ground level.
Development The carrying out of building, engineering, or other operations in, on, over or under land or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land.
Discharge Rate of flow of water.
Exception Test A site allocation test that requires that, if development has to be located in an area of flood risk, it must provide wider sustainability benefits that outweigh the flood risk.
Flood defence Infrastructure, such as flood walls and embankments, intended to protect an area against flooding, to a specified standard of protection.
Flooding Inundation by water whether this is caused by breaches, overtopping of banks or defences, inadequate or slow drainage of rainfall, underlying groundwater levels or blocked drains and sewers.
Floodplain Area of land adjacent to a watercourse, an estuary or the sea, over which water flows in time of flood, or would flow but for the presence of flood defences where they exist.
Floodplain compensation The provision of new floodplain storage capacity to replace lost natural floodplain due to development.
Flood probability The estimated probability of a flood of given magnitude occurring or being exceeded in any specified time period.
Flood risk An expression of the combination of the flood probability and the magnitude of the potential consequences of the flood event.
Flood Risk Assessment A study to assess the risk of a site or area flooding, and to assess the impact that any changes or development in the site or area will have on flood risk.
Flood Risk Management Combines the functions of mitigating and monitoring flood risks and may include pre-flood, flood-event or post-flood activities.
Flood storage The temporary storage of excess runoff or river flow in tanks, ponds, basins, reservoirs or on the floodplain.
Fluvial Relating to a river or rivers.
Fluvial flooding Flooding from a river or other watercourse.
Functional floodplain Unobstructed areas of the floodplain where water regularly flows in time of flood. PPS25 defines this as land which would flood with an annual probability of 1 in 20 (5%) or greater.
Greenfield runoff rate The rate of runoff that would occur from the site in its undeveloped (and therefore undisturbed) state.
Groundwater Water in the saturated zone of the ground below the water table.
Page 92 42 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Groundwater flooding Flooding caused by groundwater escaping from the ground when the water table rises to or above ground level.
Gully Opening in the road pavement, usually covered by metal grates, which allows water to enter conventional drainage systems.
Highways drain A conduit draining the highway. For highways maintainable at the public expense it is vested in the highway authority.
Infiltration Capacity A soil characteristic determining or describing the maximum rate at which water can enter the soil.
JFLOW: A multiscale two-dimensional dynamic flood model.
Local Planning Authority Body responsible for planning and controlling development, through the planning system.
Main river A watercourse designated on a statutory map of Main Rivers maintained by Defra on which the Environment Agency has permissive powers to construct and maintain flood defences and to ensure the free flow of water.
Ordinary watercourse All rivers, streams, ditches, drains, brooks, cuts, dykes, sluices, sewers and passages which are not designated Main River, a private drain or a public sewer. Local authorities have similar permissive powers on ordinary watercourses as the Environment Agency has on Main Rivers.
Overland flow flooding Flooding caused by surface water runoff when rainfall intensity exceeds the infiltration capacity of the ground, or when soil is so saturated that it cannot accept anymore water.
Pluvial flooding Surface flooding caused by rain.
Precautionary principle The approach, to be used in the assessment of flood risk, which requires that the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to avoid or manage flood risk.
Probability A measure of the chance that an event occurs. The probability of an event is typically defined as the relative frequency of occurrence of that event, out of all possible events.
Protected floodplain Natural floodplain prevented from flooding by defences.
Residual risk The risk that remains after risk management and mitigation. It may include, for example, risk due to very severe storms (above design standard) or risks from unforeseen hazards.
Return period The long-term average period between events of a given magnitude which have the same annual exceedence probability of occurring. Generally replaced by the term Annual Exceedence Probability.
Riparian owner A person who owns land on the bank of a watercourse or body of water and is usually responsible for maintenance of the watercourse.
Runoff The flow of water from an area on the catchment surface, caused by rainfall.
Page 93 43 8. Abbreviations and Glossary
Sequential Test A risk based approach to assessing flood risk, which gives priority to sites in order of increasing flood risk.
Sewer flooding Flooding caused by the blockage or overflowing of sewers or urban drainage systems.
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment An assessment of flood risk carried out for planning policy purposes.
Sustainable drainage system A sequence of management practices and control structures, often referred to as SuDS, designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable manner than some conventional techniques. Typically, these techniques are used to attenuate rates of runoff from development sites.
Sustainable development Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Urban creep The process whereby the impermeability of the urban area increases over time, due to modifications to individual properties.
Vulnerability Refers to the resilience of particular groups, people, properties and the environment, and their ability to respond to hazardous conditions. For example, elderly people may be less able to evacuate in the event of a rapid flood than young people.
Water table The level of groundwater in soil and rock, below which the ground is saturated.
Wetlands An area where saturation or repeated inundation of water is the determining factor in the nature of the plants and animals living there.
Page 94 44 Epping Forest and Harlow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
9. References
Broxbourne Borough Council SFRA (December 2007)
Ciria Publication C609, Sustainable Drainage Systems (2004)
Ciria Publication C697, The SuDS Manual (2007)
East Herts District Council SFRA (November 2008)
Epping Forest District Local Plan Alterations 2006
Flood Studies Report, Institute of Hydrology, 1975
Harlow Local Plan Replacement 2006
London Borough of Enfield SFRA (February 2008)
PPS25: Development and Flood Risk (December 2006)
PPS25: Practice Guide (December 2009)
Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP): Summary Document, Environment Agency, January 2007
The Design of Field Drainage Pipe Systems, ADAS Reference Book 345, 1980
The Pitt Review: Lessons Learned from the 2007 Floods (June 2008)
Page 95 45 10. Appendices
10. Appendices Appendix 1 Storm grille locations in Epping Forest District Storm grille Location Responsibility number for clearance 1 Meadow way, Lower Sheering EFDC 2 Crown Close, Sheering EFDC 3 Campions Hill, Sheering Rd., Sheering EFDC 4 Hobbs Cross, Harlow EFDC 5 Rear of 66 Parkfields, Roydon, access besides no.48 EFDC 6 Opp. "Beehive" Harlow Rd., Moreton EFDC 7 Adj. "Fernhurst" Epping rd., Roydon EFDC 8 Opp. Meadgate Rd., Sedge Green, Nazeing EFDC 9 Middle Street / Perry Hill, Nazeing EFDC 10 Adjacent "Silverdale" Hoe Lane, Nazeing EFDC 11 Opp. St Andrews Church, Vicarage Lane, North Weald EA 12 South of STW, Church Lane, North Weald EFDC 13 North of STW, Church Lane, North Weald EFDC 14 Rear of 244 High Road, North Weald EA 15 Rear of 104 - 11- Thornhill, North Weald (2 No.) EA 16 Rear of 33 Emberson Way, North Weald (Pond) EA 17 Thornwood FAS, Carpenters Arms Lane, Thornwood EFDC 18 Adjacent 41 Duck Lane, Thornwood EFDC 19 Thornwood FAS, Weald Hall Place Farm, Thornwood EFDC 20 Beecroft, Woodside, Thornwood EFDC 21 Station Road/High Road, North Weald, plus overspill EA 22 Rear of 13 Dukes Close, North Weald EFDC 23 Pike Way junction with High Road, North Weald EA 24 Rear of 46 High Road, North Weald EA 25 Rear of 46 High Road, North Weald EA 26 100 m North L.T. line Coopersale Common, Coopersale EFDC 27 Adjacent Croft Cottage, Fairfield Road, Ongar EFDC 28 Outside 92 Crooked Mile, Waltham Abbey EFDC 29 Outside 14 Stanway Road, Waltham Abbey EFDC 30 Rear of 8 Blackmore Court, Waltham Abbey EFDC 31 Rear of 8 Blackmore Court, Waltham Abbey EFDC 32 Forest Close, High Beach EFDC 33 Dear Sanctuary, Loughton Lane, Theydon Bois EFDC 34 Opposite Marshfield Garage, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey EFDC 35 Junction of Englands Land & Pyrles Lane, Loughton EFDC 36 Outside 137 Ongar Road, Abridge (Hillmans Brook) EA 37 Opposite entrance to Waters Farm,Ongard Road, Abridge EFDC 38 Loughton Brook FAS, Shaftesbury, Loughton EA 39 Downstream Loughton Brook FAS, Shaftsbury, Loughton (2 No.) EA 40 Junction High Beech Road & Smarts Lane, Loughton EFDC 41 Rear of 5 Forest View Road, Loughton EFDC 42 Near Nursery Road end, Connaught Avenue, Loughton EFDC 43 Adjacent 21 Clifton Road, Loughton EA 44 Abridge Cricket Club, Hoe Lane, Abridge EFDC 45 Rear of 25 Alderwood Drive, Abridge EFDC 46 At pond opposite Spring Grove, High Road, Loughton EFDC 47 Outside 135 Highwood Lane, Loughton EFDC 48 Opposite " Brandons", Gravel Lane, Chigwell EFDC 49 Pudding Lane, 80 metres south of Abridge Road, Chigwell EFDC 50 West of Transco Depot, Roding Lane, Chigwell EFDC 51 Opposite Hop Pole Farm, Hoe Lane, Lambourne End EFDC 52 Opposite 48 Forest Edge, Buckhurst Hill EFDC 53 Opposite 70 Forest Edge, Buckhurst Hill EFDC 54 Opposite 120 Forest Edge, Buckhurst Hill EFDC 55 Junction of Froghall Lane and Manor Road, Chigwell (2 No.) EFDC 56 Junction Bumbles Green Land and Roundabout, Bumbles Green (3 No.) EFDC 57 Parsloe Road, Jacks Hatch EFDC
Page 96 46 Agenda Item 7
Local Development Framework
Draft Annual Monitoring Report
December 2010
Page 97 This page is intentionally blank.
Page 98 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 2 of 64 CONTENTS
List of Tables 5
List of Charts 6
1.0 Introduction 7 1.1 Status of the East of England Plan 7
2.0 Epping Forest District – Key Information 8
3.0 Contextual Indicators 9 3.1 Indices of Deprivation 9
4.0 Implementation of the Local Development Scheme 16 4.1 Beyond the current monitoring period 18 4.2 Other LDF documents 18
5.0 Core Output Indicators 20 5.1 Business Development 20 5.1.1 CLG Core Output Indicators 20 5.1.1.1 Additional floorspace by employment type 20 5.1.1.2 Additional floorspace on previously developed land by type 21 5.1.1.3 Employment land available by type 21 5.1.1.4 Total amount of floorspace permitted for ‘town centre uses’ 22 5.1.2 Policy Analysis 23 5.2 Housing 26 5.2.1 CLG Core Output Indicators 26 5.2.2.1 Housing targets for Plan period 26 5.2.1.2 Additional dwellings (net) in previous years 26 5.2.1.3 Additional dwellings (net) in the monitoring year 27 5.2.1.4 Projections of future housing delivery 28 5.2.1.5 Additional dwellings on Previously Developed Land 31 5.2.1.6 Additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches 31 5.2.1.7 Additional affordable housing units (gross) 32 5.2.1.8 Housing Quality – Building for Life 32 5.2.2 Local Indicators (Not part of the Core set) 32 5.2.2.1 Housing Density 32 5.2.2.2 Policy Analysis 33 5.3 Transport 35 5.3.1 Car Parking Standards 35 5.3.2 Public Transport Accessibility 35 5.4 Local Services 37 5.4.1 Retail, Office and Leisure Development 37 5.4.2 Open Spaces 37 5.5 Minerals and Waste 38 5.6 Flood Protection and Water Quality 38 5.7 Biodiversity 38 5.7.1 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) 39 5.7.2 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) 40 5.7.3 Ramsar Sites 40 Page 99 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 3 of 64 5.7.4 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) 41 5.7.5 Local Wildlife Sites 41 5.7.6 Local Nature Reserves 41 5.8 Renewable Energy 42 5.8.1 Permitted Schemes 42 5.8.2 Policy Analysis 43 5.9 Gypsies and Travellers 44 5.9.1 Number of Sites 44 5.9.1.1 Caravan Count (actual caravans present) 44 5.9.1.2 Additional permissions for Gypsy and Traveller pitches 45 5.9.2 Planning Permissions 46 5.9.3 Assessment of Gypsy and Traveller Needs 46 5.9.4 Policy Analysis 47
6.0 Local Indicators 48 6.1 Town Centres 48 6.2 Horticultural glasshouses 49 6.3 Locally Listed Buildings 50 6.4 Bungalows 50
Appendices 53 Appendix 1: House price fluctuations 2005-2010 54 Appendix 2: Job Seekers Allowance Claimants 2006-2010 55 Appendix 3: Extract from the Local Development Scheme 56 Appendix 4: Details of housing completions 2009/10 57
Page 100 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 4 of 64 List of Tables
Table 1 - Epping Forest District - Key Statistics 8
Table 2 - Indices of Deprivation and Multiple Deprivation (2007) 10
Table 3 - Most and least deprived LSOAs, by topic, 2004 vs. 2007 15
Table 4 – Performance against LDS milestones 16
Table 5 – Completed Evidence Base documents 18
Table 6 – Continuing Evidence Base documents 19
Table 7 - Total amount of additional employment floorspace approved by type 21
Table 8 - Total amount of floorspace permitted for town centre uses 22
Table 9 - Floorspace permitted for town centre uses, in town centre areas 23
Table 10 - Additional dwellings completed in previous monitoring years 26
Table 11 – Current cumulative total of net additional dwellings 27
Table 12 – progress against East of England Plan housing target 29
Table 13 – Density of housing units completed 32
Table 14 - Accessibility of new residential development (all sites) 36
Table 15 - Accessibility of new residential development (sites of 10+ gross units) 36
Table 16 - Sites of biodiversity importance 39
Table 17 - Renewable energy schemes permitted in 2009/10 42
Table 18 - Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Count July 08 to July 10 44
Table 19 - Additional permissions for Gypsy and Traveller pitches since 2008 45
Table 20 - Percentage of non-retail use within key frontage of main town centres 48
Table 21 - Glasshouse development 49
Table 22 – Bungalow completions 1/4/05 to 11/10/10 51
Table 23 – Bungalow permissions 1/4/05 to 11/10/10 51
Table 24 – All housing completions by type 1/4/05 to 11/10/10 52
Page 101 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 5 of 64 List of Charts
Chart 1 – Actual Completions compared to EEP targets 28
Chart 2 – Housing trajectory 30
Page 102 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 6 of 64 1.0 Introduction
In 2004, The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act replaced the old Local Plan system with the new Local Development Framework (LDF). This new LDF system requires that several, smaller documents are produced, rather than one large Local Plan. One such LDF document is the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR).
The AMR is a detailed assessment of performance against local and national policy. It covers many topics, including housing, employment, transport, biodiversity and renewable energy. It is also used to monitor performance against local indicators, which are specific to this district.
The AMR must be submitted to the Secretary of State (via the appropriate Local Government Office – The Government Office for the East of England, GO East) by the end of December of each year. Each AMR covers the preceding financial year. This report therefore covers the period from the 1st April 2009 to the 31st March 2010, i.e. the 2009/10 financial year.
As in the previous year, this Council still has yet to commence major parts of the LDF, and so the number of local indicators that have been used are limited. The Council has therefore used the Core Indicator set identified by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG).
1.1 Status of the East of England Plan
The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England is the East of England Plan (EEP), published in May 2008.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon. Eric Pickles MP, sought to revoke all Regional Spatial Strategies on the 6 July 2010, by making an announcement in Parliament under section 79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development & Construction Act 2009. However, in August 2010, CALA Homes applied for a judicial review of this revocation. The judgment was issued on 10 November 2010, and found in favour of CALA Homes. A letter dated 10 November 2010 from the Chief Planner at CLG confirms that all Regional Strategies are now re- established. This letter also makes clear that it is still the intention of the coalition government to remove RSSs from the development plan framework. Amendments to primary legislation are now required to achieve this, and the Decentralisation & Localism Bill is intended to commence its passage through Parliament shortly to deliver this.
Although it is stressed that the Secretary of State expects that the intention to formally remove RSSs should be considered a material consideration in determining planning applications, the East of England Plan is still technically in effect until such time as the change is made through legislation. A further challenge on the weight which should be attributed to this intention was then launched by CALA Homes. On the 29 November 2010 the court has placed a temporary block on the government's claim that its plans to abolish Regional Strategies must be regarded as a material consideration in planning decisions.
Therefore, this AMR measures performance against the housing, and other, targets set for the district within the East of England Plan published 2008.
Page 103 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 7 of 64 2.0 Epping Forest District – Key Information
Epping Forest District is located on the north eastern edge of London, within the East of England Region. It covers 33,899 hectares, and comprises 27 parishes. The majority of the population (almost three quarters) live in the suburban areas of Loughton, Buckhurst Hill, Chigwell, Epping, Ongar and Waltham Abbey. The remaining quarter live in more rural areas, including the large villages of Roydon, Nazeing, North Weald and Theydon Bois. 94% of the district falls within the Green Belt, giving it the largest proportion of Green Belt within the East of England. It also contains many other areas of natural significance such as the part of Epping Forest which is designated a Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
Approximately 38% of the working population of the district live and work within it. However, London is the largest source of employment for those living in the district, with approximately 45% of the working population commuting there to work. The presence of the Central Line through the district encourages the use of public transport to achieve this out-commuting. House prices are correspondingly high, although they have been affected by the credit crunch in recent years. A graph of average prices in recent years is shown at Appendix 1. Unemployment has risen a little in recent years, most probably as a result of the recession. A graph showing Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants in recent years is shown at Appendix 2. More detailed information on the separate wards of the district are available in the Ward profiles: http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Council_Services/planning/forward_planning/LDF/Ward_Profiles.asp
Table 1 - Epping Forest District - Key Statistics Area 339 km2 (33,899 hectares or 131 square miles) Green Belt coverage 94% Population Epping Forest East of England England & Wales Population as of 2001 Census 120,896 5,388,140 52,041,916 Population estimate at Mid-2009* 124,000 5,766,600 54,809,100 Housing Epping Forest East of England England & Wales Average household size 2.37 people 2.36 people 2.36 people Average house price Jan-Mar 2010 ** £327,220 £232,992 £233,980 Percentage of households in a Council or Housing 16.1% 16.5% 19.2% Association property Percentage of vacant properties 2.3% 2.8% 3.4% Percentage of detached properties 23.4% 30.2% 22.8% Percentage of semi-detached properties 31.8% 31.2% 31.6% Percentage of terraced properties 23.5% 23.5% 26.0% Percentage of flats 17.5% 11.4% 13.6% Car Ownership & Commuting Epping Forest East of England England & Wales Households with no car/van 17.0% 19.8% 26.8% Households with one car/ van 42.2% 44.1% 43.8% Households with two or more cars/ vans 40.8% 36.1% 26.4% Percentage who travel to work by public transport 22.0% 10.9% 14.5% Percentage who travel to work by car 59.0% 64.7% 61.5% Percentage who travel to work by bicycle or foot 6.5% 12.9% 12.8% Socio-Cultural Measures Epping Forest East of England England & Wales Indices of Multiple Deprivation Ranking (out of 354) *** 229 n/a n/a Average % claiming JSA Apr-Jun 2010**** 3.0% 3.0% 3.7% (all GB) Unless otherwise stated all information is sourced from the 2001 Census * Mid-2009 Population Estimates - Office for National Statistics, 2010 ** Mean house prices, quarterly, by district – CLG (2010 Q1 figures used) *** Indices of Multiple Deprivation - CLG, 2007 **** Average total JSA claimants Apr-Jun 2010 (as a proportion of resident working age people) - NOMIS, Aug 2010 Page 104 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 8 of 64 3.0 Contextual Indicators
3.1 Indices of Deprivation
The indicators in this section are taken from the Indices of Deprivation (2007), which the CLG published in December 2007. This information is the same as that presented in the 2007, 2008 and 2009 AMRs, as no further Indices of Deprivation have been published since 2007.
The Indices of Multiple Deprivation contain a large number of indicators, which have been chosen to assess economic, social, housing and other issues, in all areas of England. The areas of land that the indicators are applied to are ‘Super Output Areas (SOA) Lower Level’, or LSOAs which are subsections of electoral wards.
The indicators used rank each LSOA in England against ‘Domain Indices’ on:
• Income • Employment • Health Deprivation and Disability • Education, Skills and Training • Barriers to Housing and Services • Crime and Disorder • Living Environment
These indicators are applied to each area, and then the results are used to rank the areas relative to one another according to their level of deprivation. For example, if there were a total of 100 areas that were assessed, the most deprived would be assigned the number 1, with the least deprived being assigned the number 100.
There are also two supplementary indices which are subsets of the main domains listed above. These are the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) and the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI).
The resulting Indices of Deprivation for each LSOA are then also combined and weighted, to from the Index of Multiple Deprivation for that area. These Indices of Multiple Deprivation give an overview as to the total deprivation of an area. They are then ranked relative to one another, to provide a picture of the national distribution of deprivation. There are a total of 32,482 LSOAs in England, with the LSOA at number 32,482 (which happens to be an area in Wokingham) being the least deprived, and the LSOA at number 1 (which is an area in Liverpool) being the most deprived.
Within Epping Forest District, the most deprived LSOA is an area within the south of Loughton Alderton which is ranked 5988th nationally. The least deprived LSOA in the district is Theydon Bois Village which is ranked 31907th nationally.
The categories used to derive the measures in the domains above are listed on the Communities and Local Government website www.communities.gov.uk.
The table below shows the scores for each of the LSOAs in Epping Forest District, with the LSOAs that are in the greatest need of, and are the least disadvantaged for, each measure, highlighted as follows:
Least disadvantaged LSOA for particular measure (i.e. least deprived)
LSOA with greatest need for particular measure (i.e. most deprived)
Page 105 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 9 of 64 Table 2 - Indices of Deprivation and Multiple Deprivation (2007) Rank of Rank of Rank of Barriers Rank of Location Health Rank of National Rank of Rank of Education to Crime Rank Rank of LSOA Deprivation Living LSOA Ward rank of Income Employment Skills and Housing and of of within and Environment IMD score score Training and Disorder IDACI IDAOPI ward Disability score score Services score score score E01021741 Broadley Common n/a 16156 20066 24788 27730 14922 958 9754 18148 17405 22662 E01021742 Buckhurst Hill East N 18574 13583 15888 22332 15001 19047 19799 21239 13680 20855 E01021743 Buckhurst Hill East Central 21978 13342 23122 20400 25318 19984 18257 22212 15577 8758
Page 106 E01021744 Buckhurst Hill East S 24794 21195 24416 26559 21369 20573 15807 17659 19521 22905 E01021745 Buckhurst Hill West SW 28821 26455 27641 29037 29307 16653 17524 22681 24192 26414 E01021746 Buckhurst Hill West NW 28207 22862 28182 28089 28906 17764 19690 21219 18615 23552 E01021747 Buckhurst Hill West NE 29405 27292 28371 28625 29403 20601 14722 24319 25256 26743 E01021748 Buckhurst Hill West SE 29177 26494 29098 29226 30229 22350 16091 17679 25012 29132 E01021749 Chigwell Row n/a 22537 22247 20914 24302 21595 8462 15908 26882 19083 27736 E01021750 Chigwell Village N 23231 23066 26780 26026 20688 7254 17864 17459 19043 29911 E01021751 Chigwell Village Central 29873 30512 31561 31407 27586 8876 20487 28295 28910 30581 E01021752 Chigwell Village S 25107 23865 30668 29830 21880 8214 13687 20028 21200 24841 E01021753 Chipping Ongar W 20633 17379 21716 24600 14585 14708 14066 23035 17719 13572 E01021754 Chipping Ongar S 29610 28443 28477 29440 27120 17849 15864 27609 26742 31147 E01021755 Chipping Ongar N 29987 31159 29700 27533 23452 20607 19511 22978 28434 31457 E01021756 Epping Hemnall E 25700 24994 28305 28234 22508 6747 21416 21982 25480 27930 E01021757 Epping Hemnall N 29062 26316 29734 29224 27520 22116 23584 12932 21326 26937
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 10 of 64 Rank of Rank of Rank of Barriers Rank of Location Health Rank of National Rank of Rank of Education to Crime Rank Rank of LSOA Deprivation Living LSOA Ward rank of Income Employment Skills and Housing and of of within and Environment IMD score score Training and Disorder IDACI IDAOPI ward Disability score score Services score score score E01021758 Epping Hemnall W 15281 11308 17350 21470 10780 8405 16443 21006 8613 14857 E01021759 Epping Hemnall S 22988 18791 21984 21505 16677 18890 23240 22835 16638 17342 E01021760 Epping Lindsey N 25223 22206 20514 26638 21307 20326 20201 22541 19515 22424 E01021761 Epping Lindsey E 17371 22002 19799 22131 20409 1691 15747 16856 21488 22017 E01021762 Epping Lindsey S 17541 13033 18087 19186 12563 21524 18952 15280 14142 11996
Page 107 E01021763 Epping Lindsey SW 25073 17691 23694 26054 24540 17929 23756 21087 19509 14648 E01021764 Grange Hill SE 6979 3073 9716 14546 6324 5852 8040 15655 3190 10388 E01021765 Grange Hill NE 20198 19059 22495 26791 24253 10421 5702 19811 14421 28391 E01021766 Grange Hill SW 21730 23172 23437 26163 19717 8253 11602 19161 20069 25196 E01021767 Grange Hill NW 25391 21484 28122 29640 21923 8523 20896 22676 21518 25629 E01021768 Hastingwood, Matching & Sheering n/a 17348 17853 25104 25584 21037 1174 14751 17077 16745 18911 E01021769 High Ongar and Willingale n/a 16521 17602 25433 28357 18571 480 23528 12921 15923 23716 E01021770 Lambourne n/a 14676 13390 17337 22802 11373 3717 12346 24003 9951 20783 E01021771 Loughton Alderton S 5988 4984 6845 11137 4557 3033 6314 17541 5723 7783 E01021772 Loughton Alderton N 17934 14328 18023 24909 12677 10740 17235 22083 16043 15356 E01021773 Loughton Alderton E 14541 12142 17694 16544 8782 13270 11016 20058 13209 12215 E01021774 Loughton Broadway NW 11257 9095 14106 13337 8040 7358 12434 18188 9270 9472 E01021775 Loughton Broadway E 10613 8255 10906 15255 7953 12038 6357 24765 8461 13296
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 11 of 64 Rank of Rank of Rank of Barriers Rank of Location Health Rank of National Rank of Rank of Education to Crime Rank Rank of LSOA Deprivation Living LSOA Ward rank of Income Employment Skills and Housing and of of within and Environment IMD score score Training and Disorder IDACI IDAOPI ward Disability score score Services score score score E01021776 Loughton Broadway S 10486 8763 11472 9839 8823 12992 12154 13927 11509 5322 E01021777 Loughton Fairmead NE 14990 12366 15571 19749 7492 16928 11506 25252 14217 9374 E01021778 Loughton Fairmead SE 18187 15522 19792 19838 8632 16298 16507 27145 16200 15258 E01021779 Loughton Fairmead W 11854 7972 11578 15308 10647 16023 14691 13542 6109 8105
Page 108 E01021780 Loughton Forest S 30103 29955 31245 30568 28889 8496 24412 28661 29770 27180 E01021781 Loughton Forest N 29640 26582 28517 29367 28979 22860 18695 19882 25653 26199 E01021782 Loughton Forest E 28432 27328 26754 30378 28535 13522 17927 22450 26093 28072 E01021783 Loughton Roding N 25078 24084 20635 26812 20621 19833 18784 19799 22755 27286 E01021784 Loughton Roding Central 24818 24972 25221 28864 18144 17099 11858 19969 24783 26659 E01021785 Loughton Roding S 12290 9106 12078 14588 8796 13681 13644 21830 9617 14036 E01021786 Loughton St Johns E 27171 23020 26605 27401 24447 19395 19043 20057 19840 26595 E01021787 Loughton St Johns NW 28168 28248 30619 30697 29054 10472 14673 20184 24116 30786 E01021788 Loughton St Johns NE 26465 24894 26140 28235 22334 16800 13082 24423 20858 26680 E01021789 Loughton St Marys S 28028 25694 28335 27581 27747 21491 11352 22925 24677 27525 E01021790 Loughton St Marys E 12607 8158 15590 16473 7604 11402 15954 20557 8253 8708 E01021791 Loughton St Marys W 27651 26451 27311 27046 26245 23315 20067 11727 24684 25421 E01021792 Lower Nazeing W 27098 28203 27050 28171 19369 8198 23616 29113 23253 29643 E01021793 Lower Nazeing S 28773 26277 27401 29207 16838 23750 23291 26929 23625 28386
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 12 of 64 Rank of Rank of Rank of Barriers Rank of Location Health Rank of National Rank of Rank of Education to Crime Rank Rank of LSOA Deprivation Living LSOA Ward rank of Income Employment Skills and Housing and of of within and Environment IMD score score Training and Disorder IDACI IDAOPI ward Disability score score Services score score score E01021794 Lower Nazeing E 18602 13486 25203 23150 8592 11998 16284 29009 12450 18265 E01021795 Lower Sheering n/a 22898 28534 28136 29360 25410 778 24157 24744 26223 29768 E01021796 Moreton & Fyfield n/a 20796 24470 24320 27510 22451 1716 24427 15827 26890 24315 E01021797 North Weald Bassett N 20656 25461 25835 23269 10845 3876 19922 25713 22029 28875 E01021798 North Weald Bassett SE 26014 23713 27016 27960 15890 15838 20800 23579 25508 19896
Page 109 E01021799 North Weald Bassett SW 13106 10390 16714 19019 11546 7506 9032 16259 9835 12366 E01021800 Passingford n/a 12010 14198 18668 23631 14159 101 14352 15022 12590 23592 E01021801 Roydon n/a 21303 20123 21046 25588 17605 8369 15111 26765 17363 23515 E01021802 Shelley n/a 12904 11081 18563 21313 7644 3281 13157 21576 10806 12747 E01021803 Theydon Bois SW 23312 19003 22263 25409 20116 10949 20458 28394 19434 16573 E01021804 Theydon Bois NE 24446 22539 28339 26823 23358 15415 13922 12222 27476 18583 E01021805 Theydon Bois Village 31907 30782 29459 30783 28700 24962 24105 29195 28715 31931 E01021806 Waltham Abbey High Beach n/a 13505 19868 16631 25567 15323 1351 9136 8961 21973 24224 E01021807 Waltham Abbey Honey Lane N 17155 18428 17222 20216 12262 9278 10638 23757 18696 20476 E01021808 Waltham Abbey Honey Lane W 11543 10517 16451 18281 6179 2965 12937 22864 9318 15195 E01021809 Waltham Abbey Honey Lane NE 11501 13926 9641 12491 5856 8539 14665 24688 16061 14171 E01021810 Waltham Abbey Honey Lane SE 21246 17922 25679 24809 15239 8292 16085 26161 14637 14589
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 13 of 64 Rank of Rank of Rank of Barriers Rank of Location Health Rank of National Rank of Rank of Education to Crime Rank Rank of LSOA Deprivation Living LSOA Ward rank of Income Employment Skills and Housing and of of within and Environment IMD score score Training and Disorder IDACI IDAOPI ward Disability score score Services score score score E01021811 Waltham Abbey NE SE 10113 8068 9293 15083 4914 9199 15713 26755 8634 8942 E01021812 Waltham Abbey NE N 12302 18139 18373 20065 7814 412 23191 12141 17335 17173 E01021813 Waltham Abbey NE S 22126 23879 21560 24078 15381 20563 9681 20339 26062 18506 E01021814 Waltham Abbey Paternoster N 11915 13165 14121 9512 5224 10785 11956 26443 16003 7216
Page 110 E01021815 Waltham Abbey Paternoster SE 11319 9544 9932 14927 5124 12235 17904 26422 11140 11577 E01021816 Waltham Abbey Paternoster SW 7965 6777 7699 11941 3584 6519 12470 25478 8996 3256 E01021817 Waltham Abbey SW S 13714 12187 19161 21540 8946 5180 10395 17651 9709 17459 E01021818 Waltham Abbey SW N 15196 13852 17644 15864 11741 17266 11132 11687 14059 13857
As visible in the ‘Epping Forest District - Key Statistics’ data on page 8 of this document, the Index of Multiple Deprivation Ranking for Epping Forest District in 2007 was 229 (out of 354). This is slightly lower than the figure of 234 contained within the 2004 dataset. The decrease in this number indicates that the district is slightly more deprived overall than three years ago, compared with all the other districts in the country.
This change could be due to many factors. Analysis of the differences between the most and least deprived scores of 2004 and 2007, shows that 7 of the 10 most deprived areas have improved and have scored as slightly better to live in, whereas 7 of the 10 least deprived areas have worsened slightly and are a little more deprived than they were. The scores indicate that the worsening of the least deprived areas is of about twice the level of the improvement of the most deprived areas.
A comparison of the most and least deprived LSOAs for each topic in 2004 versus the newer statistics from 2007 is as follows.
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 14 of 64 Table 3 - Most and least deprived LSOAs, by topic, 2004 vs. 2007 Rank of Rank of Rank of Health Rank of Indices Rank of Rank of Education Barriers to Rank of Living National Deprivation Crime and Rank of Rank of Ranking from Income Employment Skills and Housing and Environment rank of IMD and Disorder IDACI IDAOPI year score score Training Services score Disability score score score score
Chipping Chigwell Buckhurst Hill Moreton & Loughton Theydon Theydon Bois Chigwell Village Theydon Bois Theydon Bois 2007 Ongar Village West Fyfield Forest Bois Least deprived Loughton Loughton Lower Buckhurst Hill Loughton Loughton Theydon Theydon Bois Theydon Bois Waltham Abbey NE 2004 Forest Forest Nazeing West St Mary’s St Mary’s Bois
Waltham Waltham Waltham Loughton Loughton Waltham Abbey Grange Grange Hill Abbey Abbey Passingford Grange Hill Abbey Page 111 2007 Alderton Alderton High Beach Hill Most Paternoster Paternoster Paternoster deprived Waltham Waltham Waltham Waltham Abbey Broadley Grange Grange Hill Grange Hill Abbey Abbey Passingford Loughton St Mary’s Abbey 2004 Paternoster Common Hill Paternoster Paternoster Paternoster
As can be seen from the details above, the generally most deprived and least deprived geographical areas in the district are mostly unchanged. The most deprived areas continue to tend to be in Waltham Abbey, Grange Hill and parts of Loughton, while the least deprived areas continue to tend to be in Theydon Bois, Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill and different parts of Loughton. Several LSOAs appear in the same place in the ranking as they did in the 2004 indices. The relatively poor score which Passingford achieved in ‘Barriers to Housing and Services’ is probably due to the rural nature of the Lower Super Output Area (and thus the Ward), meaning that less nearby local shops and services are available to inhabitants than in more urban areas. The saved policies from the Adopted Local Plan (1998), and the policies from the Adopted Local Plan Alterations (2006) seek to improve the performance of each of the Lower Super Output Areas in several different ways. Some policies seek sustainable housing, with good public transport links, and proximity to schools and health services. The Lifetime Homes policy seeks to encourage the building of dwellings that meet (or can be adapted to meet) the needs of residents with disabilities. Other policies seek to reduce crime by the use of better design, and to increase employment by protecting land in existing employment use. Further policies to address these issues will be brought forward through the forthcoming Local Development Framework.
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 15 of 64 4.0 Implementation of the Local Development Scheme
The Local Development Scheme (LDS) for Epping Forest District is a detailed timetable of Local Development Framework documents that are to be produced. It must cover at least three years, and progress is reviewed every year as part of the Annual Monitoring Report. Further reviews may be triggered by changes in regional and national planning policy, although where possible the need for such changes should be identified within the AMR.
The first LDS was adopted in October 2005. A revised LDS was submitted to GO East in October 2006, to take into account delays to the East of England Plan (EEP). The 2006 version was amended to include a Gypsy and Traveller DPD, required by a Government Direction served in 2007 (subsequently revoked in 2010), and re- submitted to GO East in November 2007.
Appendix 3 contains an extract of the current (2006 amended for the direction) LDS, which indicates the 2009/10 AMR monitoring period. The milestones within this period, and Council’s performance against them, are set out in more detail below.
Clearly there have been significant delays to the timetable of the existing LDS. However, uncertainties over the Direction to produce the Gypsy and Traveller DPD (which was finally revoked in 2010), and over the status of the East of England Plan, in the wake of the change in Government in 2010, have meant that a revised LDS could not be issued. The Forward Planning team intends to revise the LDS very shortly.
Table 4 – Performance against LDS milestones
Original LDS milestones Performance Further Action programmed for the 2009/10 Necessary AMR Monitoring Period
Provision for Gypsies & The Direction to produce a separate None – document will Travellers DPD Gypsy and Traveller DPD was formally not go ahead revoked by the Coalition Government in • Submission Sept-Oct 09 July 2010. Full Council agreed in July 2010 to cease further work on the DPD with immediate effect. Provision for Gypsies and Travellers will now be made through planning applications, assessed against existing policy, until such time as new policies are created in the future Core Planning Strategy.
Core Planning Strategy DPD Delays outlined above have meant that Work is in progress at formal consultation stages on the Core present, the formal • Submission Jun-Jul 09 Planning Strategy have not been reached Issues & Options stage yet. However, as outlined in para 4.1 is now planned for • Examination in Public Jan below, significant Community Summer 2011 10 Visioning/pre-Issues and Options consultation for the Core Planning Strategy is now underway. This will help to kick start and feed into the Core Planning Strategy process.
Page 112 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 16 of 64 Original LDS milestones Performance Further Action programmed for the 2009/10 Necessary AMR Monitoring Period
Land Allocations DPD Delays outlined above have meant that Work on this DPD will be formal consultation stages on the Core undertaken once the • Submission Nov-Dec 10 Planning Strategy, and on subsequent broader spatial land allocations, have not been reached decisions on yet. development have been made through the Core Planning Strategy.
Area Action Plan – Land at North This AAP was originally required as None – document will Weald significant growth had been planned for not go ahead North Weald Airfield within a previous • Submission Nov-Dec 10 iteration of the East of England Plan. Even though the revocation of the EEP has now been the subject of a successful legal challenge, this AAP will not go ahead, as significant growth in North Weald does not appear in the final published version of the EEP.
Area Action Plan – Lands around This AAP may still be required as Work on this document Harlow significant growth is been planned in and will only commence around Harlow (particularly to the North) once Members and • Submission Nov-Dec 10 within the published East of England Plan. senior management Work has not commenced on the from the three document, as there have been delays due authorities have met and to questions over the status of the EEP agreed the way forward following the Secretary of State’s on this issue. revocation, and delays to talks between the relevant three local authorities.
Previous delays to the East of England Plan have contributed to delays to the preparation work for most of this Council’s LDF, as firm targets for provision of housing, employment, etc were not published until May 2008. The subsequent change in Government, revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies, and successful legal challenge to the revocation, have all complicated the situation.
Furthermore, the designation of Harlow as a Key Centre for Development and Change means that a consensus between this Council and neighbouring authorities will have to be reached as to how to split and interpret the joint targets for housing and employment. Talks between members of the various authorities involved are ongoing, and clearly must be thorough and considered in order to tackle the challenges posed.
Clearly delays to the Core Planning Strategy have a knock on effect upon the rest of the LDF – the Land Allocations DPD and Area Action Plan for ‘Lands around Harlow’ have not been progressed, as they cannot be meaningful until strategic decisions about growth are made through the Core Planning Strategy. The Area Action Plan for ‘Land at North Weald’ is now longer needed, as the proposals for housing at North Weald Airfield in earlier drafts of the East of England Plan were subsequently removed.
Page 113 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 17 of 64 The Secretary of State issued this Council with a Direction in September 2007, to include a separate Development Plan Document (DPD) on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation issues. The Issues and Options stage of consultation took place from November 2008 to February 2009. Following the formation of the new Coalition Government earlier in 2010, the new Minister for Decentralisation Greg Clark MP confirmed the cancellation of the Direction, on the 6 July 2010. The Council meeting of 27th July agreed to cease further work on the DPD with immediate effect.
Future provision for Gypsies and Travellers will be made through the planning application process, at first through existing, saved Local Plan policy, and in the coming years, through the emerging Local Development Framework.
4.1 Beyond the current monitoring period
In November 2010, outside the 2009/10 monitoring period, the Forward Planning team began Community Visioning exercises, designed to gather ideas and opinions on local issues before the commencement of the Core Planning Strategy Issues and Options scheduled for Summer 2011. This Community Visioning consultation (8th November 2010 – 7th January 2011) involved separate public and stakeholder workshops, in various locations around the district, a consultation leaflet being delivered to each household, consultation postcards being given out at several tube stations, significant interactive features on the EFDC website, Facebook and Ideascale sites, and a photography competition, to encourage local people to express issues and ideas which they feel are important. At the time of writing, this consultation is still underway.
4.2 Other LDF documents
As detailed above, almost all of the LDF documents have been substantially delayed.
However, work has been progressing on several Evidence Base documents since the last Annual Monitoring Report, which will form a strong foundation for future work.
Those completed are as follows:
Table 5 – Completed Evidence Base documents Document Completed in
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) January 2010 Landscape Character Assessment January 2010 (Landscape Sensitivity Analysis to follow this work) Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (relating to the ‘scope’ of a Sustainability Appraisal of the future Core May 2010* Planning Strategy. Consultation on the draft document was undertaken in May-July 2010, outside the current monitoring period) Town Centres Study May 2010*
Local Wildlife Sites Review (also known as Habitats Assessment) May 2010*
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Viability Testing August 2010*
Employment Land Review September 2010* * Completed outside of the 2009/10 monitoring year
Page 114 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 18 of 64 The following Evidence Base documents are currently in progress:
Table 6 – Continuing Evidence Base documents Document Status Work is progressing internally, and reaching the final PPG17 Audit of Open Space stages. The second phase, assessment of the sites identified, will follow. Work is progressing internally, completion is Strategic Flood Risk Assessment anticipated in December 2010. Work on Level 2 (site- Level 1 (area-wide) specific) will follow.
Settlement Edge Landscape Work is progressing, completion is anticipated in Sensitivity Study February 2011.
Work is progressing, completion is anticipated in Rye Meads Water Cycle Study February 2011.
Internal preparation work is ongoing, completion is Strategic Housing Land Availability anticipated in May 2011. The Call for Sites exercise is Assessment still open and will inform the SHLAA.
Page 115 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 19 of 64 5.0 Core Output Indicators
The RSS and LDF Core Output Indicators (Update 2, July 2008) are shown in grey boxes in the following section, organised by policy area. The Forward Planning team has also identified some Local Indicators.
5.1 Business Development
Targets for business development are provided by the East of England Plan (published May 2008).
Policy E1: Job Growth sets ‘indicative targets for net growth in jobs for the period 2001- 2021…as reference values for monitoring purposes and guidance for regional and local authorities… in their policy and decision making on employment’.
The target relevant to this authority is a joint figure of 56,000 net new jobs for the ‘Rest of Essex’ area, comprising the local authority areas of Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Epping Forest, Harlow, Maldon, and Uttlesford.
No split is given in this figure, i.e. no specific allocation is given for each authority, therefore the final number of new jobs to be provided in this district alone will effectively be determined by the LDF process.
The recently completed Employment Land Review provides evidence on this matter which will contribute to the preparation of new policies on employment land provision, see para 5.1.2.
5.1.1 CLG Core Output Indicators
5.1.1.1 Additional floorspace by employment type
Core Output Indicator BD1 Total amount of additional employment floorspace - by type
In monitoring floorspace in employment use, it has proved difficult to obtain wholly accurate figures. In many instances where only a change of use is required, Building Control approval (and therefore inspections at various dates) are not required. In these cases, local knowledge of specific sites has proven very useful.
Where no information has been available, much of the approved floorspace has been classed as “available” floorspace, when in fact it may be complete.
In 2009/10 permission was given for a net loss of 0.206ha of employment use floorspace (classes B1 - Business, B2 – General Industrial & B8 – Storage or distribution). The breakdown of this area is detailed in the following table, showing gross gains, losses, and resultant net loss.
Page 116 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 20 of 64 Table 7 - Total amount of additional employment floorspace approved by type Use Class (Mix) Gross Gain (ha) Lost (ha) Net Gain (ha)
B1a* 0.037 0.076 -0.039 B1b* 0.000 0.000 0.000 B1c* 0.113 0.042 0.071 B2 0.000 0.053 -0.053 B8 0.253 0.538 -0.285 B1 (split unknown) 0.186 0.105 0.081 B1/B8 (split unknown) 0.025 0.000 0.025 B1a*/ B8 (split unknown) 0.000 0.006 -0.006
Total 0.614 0.820 -0.206 *B1a = Offices, B1b = Research & Development, B1c = Light Industry
5.1.1.2 Additional floorspace on previously developed land by type
Core Output Indicator BD2 Total amount of additional employment floorspace (gross) on previously developed land - by type
As mentioned in paragraph 5.2.1.5, in June 2010, the Coalition Government republished Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3: Housing, amending the definition of Previously Developed Land (PDL).
However, as this did not happen until after the end of the monitoring period (31st March 2010) the ‘old’ definition of PDL has been used.
In 2009/10 permission for a total of 0.614ha gross employment floorspace was given. Of this, 0.366ha gross was on previously developed land, i.e. 59.58% of all gross floorspace permitted within the monitoring period.
The 0.248ha gross (40.42%) which was on Greenfield land, was on only two sites, both of which were developed for B8 use.
5.1.1.3 Employment land available by type
Core Output Indicator BD3 Employment land available - by type
There are no sites allocated for employment in the Local Plan which have not been used already. All sites with planning permission have been included within BD1, therefore the return for BD3 is zero. The relevant LDF documents making site allocations for employment land have not been published yet. Please see para 5.1.2
Page 117 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 21 of 64 (policy analysis) for more information on recently completed Evidence Base documents involving employment land.
5.1.1.4 Total amount of floorspace permitted for ‘town centre uses’
Core Output Indicator BD4 Total amount of floorspace for ‘town centre uses’
So far, Government only requires data for A1, A2 and D2 uses to be collected, however, the Forward Planning has also collected data for A3, A4, A5 and D1 uses, as shown below.
Data is also presented in two ways; the ‘total’ gains and losses permitted for town centre uses, and then the subset, those permitted gains and losses within designated ‘town centre’ areas, i.e. areas which appear in Local Plan Maps as ‘Town Centres’.
‘Total’ floorspace developed for town centre uses
The 2009/10 breakdown is as follows*:
Table 8 - Total amount of floorspace permitted for town centre uses Net Gain (ha) – total for Use Class Gross Gain (ha) Lost (ha) this use class A1 0.358 0.043 0.316 A2 0.017 0.220 -0.203 A3 0.111 0.001 0.110 A4 0.007 0.000 0.007 A5 0.023 0.000 0.023 ‘A’ Subtotal 0.516 0.264 0.252 D1 0.308 0.055 0.253 D2 0.098 0.001 0.097 ‘D’ Subtotal 0.406 0.056 0.350
TOTAL 0.922 0.320 0.602 * NB Figures may not total correctly, as site areas of each development were given at an accuracy of 0.00001ha. Data above is rounded to the nearest 0.001ha for ease of reference.
Page 118 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 22 of 64 Floorspace permitted for town centre uses, in ‘Town Centre Areas’
The 2009/10 breakdown is as follows*:
Table 9 - Floorspace permitted for town centre uses, in town centre areas % of total Net Gain Gross Gain Net Gain Use Class Lost (ha) (for this use class, (ha) (ha) see Table 8) A1 0.179 0.042 0.137 43.34% A2 0.000 0.097 -0.097 n/a – is a net loss A3 0.097 0.000 0.097 88.43% A4 0.005 0.000 0.005 78.68% A5 0.023 0.000 0.023 100.00% ‘A’ Subtotal 0.304 0.139 0.165 n/a
D1 0.018 0.009 0.009 3.37% D2 0.000 0.000 0.000 n/a – net gain is 0 ‘D2’ Subtotal 0.018 0.009 0.009 n/a TOTAL 0.322 0.148 0.174 n/a * NB Figures and percentages may not total correctly, as site areas of each development were given at an accuracy of 0.00001ha. Data above is rounded to the nearest 0.001ha for ease of reference.
5.1.2 Policy Analysis
Policy E4A of the Local Plan Alterations seeks to protect employment land. This will only become more important in the future, as this Council works towards fulfilment of the target for new jobs within the published East of England Plan. Policy E4B of the Local Plan Alterations sets out the Council’s preferences for alternative uses should continued employment use be considered inappropriate on a site.
New policies will be formed through the Council’s LDF in the next few years, to ensure that sufficient employment land is completed, and to steer it towards the most appropriate and sustainable areas available. Two Evidence Base documents which relate to employment land have been published since the last AMR: the Employment Land Review (available at: http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Council_Services/planning/forward_planning/LDF/Employment_Land_Review.asp) and the Town Centres Study (available at: http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Council_Services/planning/forward_planning/LDF/Town_Centres_Study.asp).
The key findings for EFDC in the Employment Land Review were:
• Employment in Epping Forest District is dominated by three sectors: distribution, hotels and restaurants (25.5%); banking and finance (23.9%) and public services (20.7%). Growth in employment has been strong in the construction industry (5.4% per annum) and the transport and communications sectors (7.4% pa).
Page 119 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 23 of 64 • Business structure is dominated (90.7% of businesses) by micro businesses of 1 – 10 employees. Micro businesses, and small businesses (11 - 49 employees) combined make up a total of 60.4% of employment.
• The employment forecast identifies a net growth of 1,000 jobs in Epping Forest District to 2031. Sectoral forecasts indicate that future demand for new floorspace would be for B1 premises, and that the requirement would be for an additional 43,700m2, this is equivalent to 5.83 hectares of employment land by 2031. The Aktins (consultants who prepared the report) forecasts take an optimistic view of employment growth. When the East of England Forecasting Model data is considered there is requirement for 32,000m2 or 4.31ha of land. This is a 27% difference in the amount of floorspace between the two forecasts.
• The local business survey identifies that there is a high level of satisfaction with current business premises, with only 2% of businesses responding that current premises are unsuitable. Some 42% of local businesses are looking to expand. Medium and large businesses had the highest proportion of businesses wanting to expand, particularly those located in Epping, Ongar and North Weald.
• Combining the business survey data with the ABI (Annual Business Inquiry) data about the number of B-class businesses in the District, it is estimated that in Epping Forest District existing businesses would require an additional 45,125m2 over the next 5 years.
• The survey of existing sites includes 42 sites in Epping Forest District, and found that half were located in a typically rural environment, whilst the other half were within the urban area. The majority (67%) of sites within the District are of ‘average’ quality. Overall only 3% of sites were considered to be ‘poor’.
• Vacant, and ‘opportunity’ (unoccupied land with vacant/obsolete buildings) land together provide a theoretical capacity of around 46,000m2 in Epping Forest District. Although this would contribute to meeting needs it is insufficient to meet all identified future needs on current sites.
The key findings of the Town Centres Study were as follows:
• The smaller centres in the District may, in future, be susceptible to the national trend towards more spending in larger, higher order centres, and over the internet.
• There are reasonably high levels of expenditure ‘leakage’ from the district for both comparison and convenience goods and there is an opportunity to ‘claw back’ some of this expenditure to the District
• There is modest overtrading of the existing foodstores (i.e. in excess of a benchmark turnover)
• The ‘hierarchy’ of the 6 town centres should be revisited though the LDF, to better reflect their differing sizes and functions
• In terms of future development for the centres in the District, capacity is identified for comparison retailing (non-food items such as clothing, furniture and electrical goods), convenience retailing (everyday items such as food, newspapers and drinks), and food and drink leisure uses (including bars, restaurants and entertainment venues such as cinemas, bingo halls and bowling alleys). In line with
Page 120 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 24 of 64 national policy new retail capacity would need to be located in the existing six centres. Obviously any decisions on allocations would need to be made through the LDF.
• The capacity identified comprises the following figures. These are based on an increased market share scenario, i.e. seeking to increase the share of the market that the six centres have for all retail spending by residents of the District: o A1 comparison retail: 13,700m2 up to 2016, 21,600m2 up to 2021 o A1 convenience retail (superstores or supermarkets): 3,700m2 up to 2016, 4,900m2 up to 2021 o A1 convenience retail (small foodstores or deep discounters): 3,600m2 up to 2016, 4,800m2 up to 2021
These findings will be used to feed into the future Core Planning Strategy and other LDF documents.
Page 121 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 25 of 64 5.2 Housing
5.2.1 CLG Core Output Indicators
5.2.2.1 Housing targets for Plan period
Core Output Indicator H1 Plan period and housing targets
The housing target for the 2009/10 monitoring year is drawn from the East of England Plan (EEP). It is for 3,500 net new dwellings within the period of the EEP, 01/04/2001 to 31/03/2021.
This target equates to 175 homes per annum throughout the period. It is also possible that some of the 16,000 homes proposed for areas within and around Harlow might fall within the Epping Forest District boundary. The report of the Panel on the Examination in Public suggested a figure in the region of 3,000 (net) new homes in extensions to the West and South, and possibly to the East, of Harlow. However, this now depends on Members’ decisions as to co-ordinated working with Harlow and East Herts Councils, following the attempted revocation, and subsequent successful legal challenge, relating to the EEP.
5.2.1.2 Additional dwellings (net) in previous years
Core Output Indicator H2(a) Net additional dwellings - in previous years
This data begins at the start of the East of England Plan Period (2001).
Table 10 - Additional dwellings completed in previous monitoring years Monitoring Year Net number of dwellings completed 2001/02 237 2002/03 271 2003/04 208 2004/05 240 2005/06 286 2006/07 277 2007/08 108 2008/09 157 Total 1,784
Page 122 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 26 of 64 5.2.1.3 Additional dwellings (net) in the monitoring year
Core Output Indicator H2(b) Net additional dwellings – for the reporting year
In 2009/10 there were 209 (gross) dwellings completed. This includes some conversions. 33 dwellings were lost during the monitoring year, thus the net total of new dwellings completed is 176. Full details of the dwellings completed in this monitoring period are contained in Appendix 4.
The 2009/10 figure is an improvement on last year’s figure, although it is clear that the recession is still having an effect on housebuilding.
These 176 dwellings bring the total number of dwellings completed since the start of the Plan period to 1,960, as detailed below:
Table 11 – Current cumulative total of net additional dwellings Monitoring Year Net number of dwellings completed 2001/02 237 2002/03 271 2003/04 208 2004/05 240 2005/06 286 2006/07 277 2007/08 108 2008/09 157 2009/10 176 Total 1,960
Page 123 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 27 of 64 Chart 1 – Actual Completions compared to EEP targets
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
New dwelling units (net) units dwelling New 1000
500
0 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Monitoring Year
Actual Completions - Cumulative from 2001
East of England Plan annualised allocation (175 units) - Cumulative over plan period
Chart 1 shows the Council’s performance so far against the target for housing completions in the EEP. As mentioned above, the total Plan period of 2001-2021 carries a target of 3,500 net new dwellings, which equates to an annualised target of 175.
5.2.1.4 Projections of future housing delivery
Core Output Indicator H2(c) Net additional dwellings - in future years
Core Output Indicator H2(d) Managed delivery target
The Housing Trajectory (Chart 2), further on in this section of the AMR, gives more detail as to the projected completion rates within the EEP plan period. The housing trajectory is identical to the updated 5 year assessment of land supply (2011/12- 2015/16), available on the Council’s website at: http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Library/files/planning/Local_Development_Framework/Evidence_Base/5 _year_assessments/5%20year%20assessment%202011-16%20complete.pdf.
As mentioned before, it is recognised that this Council may have to provide some additional (net) homes on lands around Harlow. There is no figure given within the adopted East of England Plan, and so the only indicative figure at this point is the 3,000 units suggested within the Panel Report, completed during the Examination in Public of the EEP. Policy HA1 of the EEP required the three local planning authorities and other
Page 124 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 28 of 64 partners to consider the scale and distribution of future growth at Harlow. A report ‘Generating and Appraising Spatial Options for the Harlow Area’ (Scott Wilson, January 2010) has now been completed. This study provides a further source of information to be used in determining the most appropriate distribution of growth. This, and other evidence, will be used by all three authorities in preparing their Local Development Frameworks.
Once a considered figure has been determined through the LDF process, this target will also form part of a further trajectory, for the Harlow area.
Table 12 sets out the progress made towards fulfilling the EEP housing target, by detailing the housing units already completed so far, and giving details of the dwelling units expected to be completed within the coming years. Chart 2, below, shows the predictions of when these identified units are likely to be completed
Table 12 – progress against East of England Plan housing target Category Net dwelling units
EEP Housing target 3,500 Minus - net dwelling units built from 2001/02-2009/10 1,960 Minus – PP* granted, not yet commenced, 10 gross units or more 374.4 Minus - PP granted, not yet commenced, less than 10 gross units 181.8 Minus - PP granted, commenced but not completed, 10 gross units or more 286.2 Minus - PP granted, commenced but not completed, less than 10 gross units 81 Minus - Informally identified - adopted development brief 84.6 Remaining dwellings to provide 532 *PP = planning permission
Please note, the above figures are to the nearest 0.1 unit, as a 10% non-build rate was applied (as explained in the 5 year assessment of land supply).
Page 125 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 29 of 64 Chart 2 – Housing trajectory Page 126
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 30 of 64 As central government require 5 year assessments of land supply to begin from the start of the next financial year, the 77 units predicted to be completed within the remainder of 2010/11 are not included in the 5 year land supply calculations.
The 5 year assessment of land supply identified units to be completed within the 5 year period, i.e. from 2011/12 to 2015/16. The figure shown for the years 2016/17 onwards are simply the annualised provision figure, as no units can be identified for completion so far into the future at this point.
Please see the 5 year assessment of land supply on the Council’s website (link as previously), for more details.
The trajectory continues to predict a meeting, and significant over-provision, of the target within the East of England Plan. This 5 year assessment actually identifies a supply of 144.00% of the land supply required by the East of England Plan, for the 5 year period in question.
5.2.1.5 Additional dwellings on Previously Developed Land
Core Output Indicator H3 New and converted dwellings (gross) - on previously developed land
In June 2010, the Coalition Government republished Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3: Housing. One of the amendments made was to alter the status of residential gardens from previously developed land (PDL) to ‘Greenfield’.
However, as this did not happen until after the end of the monitoring period (31st March 2010) the ‘old’ definition of PDL has been used.
In 2009/10, 202 of the 209 total (gross) dwellings completed in Epping Forest District were built on PDL. This equates to 96.65% of the gross total.
The 96.65% achieved performs very well against the Government’s regional target of 60.00% within Policy SS2 (Overall Spatial Strategy) of the East of England Plan.
5.2.1.6 Additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches
Core Output Indicator H4 Net additional pitches (Gypsy and Traveller)
In 2009/10, a total of 9 net additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches were granted planning permission. All 9 were given permanent permission. Please see para 5.9.1.2 for more details.
No additional pitches for Travelling Showpeople were granted permission (no applications for such pitches was submitted).
Please see section 4.0 for more information this Council’s former Direction regarding a draft Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document. See section 5.9 for more data on Gypsy and Traveller provision.
Page 127 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 31 of 64 5.2.1.7 Additional affordable housing units (gross)
Core Output Indicator H5 Gross affordable housing completions
During this monitoring period 66 (gross) affordable units were completed. This is 31.58% of the gross number of completions for the year. Of these 66 units, 58 were for social rent, and 8 were for shared ownership.
This was a significant improvement on last year’s total figure of 31 affordable units.
5.2.1.8 Housing Quality – Building for Life
Core Output Indicator H6 Housing Quality – Building for Life Assessments
This information is not currently collected locally, and is not considered by Development Control officers. It is hoped that it can be incorporated into future AMRs.
5.2.2 Local Indicators (Not part of the Core set)
The following indicator is no longer part of the ‘core’ set, but has been reported on locally.
5.2.2.1 Housing Density
Local Indicator HOU1 Percentage of new dwellings (gross) completed at densities of: (i) less than 30 dwellings per hectare (ii) between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare (iii) above 50 dwellings per hectare
The following table shows the density breakdown of new dwellings (gross) completed within the monitoring year:
Table 13 – Density of housing units completed Number Percentage of Density achieved of units completions (i) less than 30 dwellings per hectare 92 44.02% (ii) between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare 21 10.05% (iii) more than 50 dwellings per hectare 96 45.93% Total 209 100.00%
As noted in paragraph 5.2.1.5, in June 2010, the Coalition Government republished Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3: Housing. Another of the amendments made was to delete the national indicative minimum housing density of 30 dwellings per
Page 128 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 32 of 64 hectare. However, this did not happen until after the end of the monitoring period (31st March 2010).
It is noted that over 55% of all dwellings completed within 2009/10 achieved a density within, or in excess of, the national indicative minimum density.
5.2.2.2 Policy Analysis
The provision of affordable housing within the district is a priority for the Council, as demonstrated in the action HN1 within the ‘Homes and Neighbourhoods’ chapter of the Council Plan. In recognition of the relatively low number of affordable dwellings that have been completed in recent years, and the increasing level of need for such dwellings, the Council adopted new policies on the provision of affordable housing within the Local Plan Alterations (2006), which seek higher percentages to be provided on suitable sites. The definition of a suitable site was amended to take better account of the smaller sites that have been coming forward for development in recent years.
The proportion of gross affordable housing units provided within the monitoring year (31.58%) was significantly higher than last year (17.13%), which is encouraging, however it is still not nearly enough to address the Council’s housing waiting list, which, as at March 2010, stood at just over 5,000 households.
As mentioned before, the level of housing to be provided at lands around Harlow is yet to be determined through the LDF process, and so the level of affordable housing to be provided through these sites cannot be known. This is however, expected to be a significant figure.
A Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was completed in 2010 by consultants for a group of several local authorities including this Council (available at: http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Council_Services/planning/forward_planning/LDF/Strategic_Housing_ Market_Assessment.asp). A SHMA cannot provide definitive estimates of housing need, demand and market conditions. However, it can provide valuable insights into how housing markets operate, both now and in the future.
Some of the key findings of the SHMA were:
• The key factors that characterise the SHMA area: - Its proximity to London; - Its house prices; - The diversity of the area that appeals to both residents and migrant households.
• Between 2001 and 2006, the population of the area rose by 8.5% and the 2001 Census states that 5.5% of households in the SHMA area are overcrowded. It is estimated that around 7,100 households in Epping Forest are considered to be ‘unsuitably housed’. This term is used to encompass households: - that are homeless or have insecure tenure; - that are ‘mismatched’ to the dwelling they live in; - living in dwellings that lack amenities or are in a poor condition; and - with social needs that can only be resolved through a move.
Page 129 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 33 of 64 A report testing the viability of the SHMA policy suggestions was also published in 2010, and is available at: http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Council_Services/planning/forward_planning/LDF/Strategic_Housing_Market_Asse ssment_-_Viability.asp
The SHMA Viability report considered the achievability/viability of various percentages of affordable housing, within six different ‘value areas’ within Epping Forest District – based on postcodes. The main key findings, for ‘strategic development sites’ (i.e. large scale housing development) was that it should be possible to achieve an overall developer contribution of 35% affordable housing in four of the six value areas (CM16, RM4, IG10 & IG7). In the CM5/EN9 value area 35% affordable housing is likely to be achievable if a lower Section 106 contribution is applied. Finally, in the lowest value area (CM17) a significantly lower proportion of affordable housing can be delivered; 15%.
The report recommends that the general threshold for the provision of affordable housing should remain at 15 units. In considering smaller sites, it is recommended that the lowest threshold at which affordable housing should be sought is five units. This differs from the current policy position, in which the threshold is variable according to site location and land type. It is considered that a single approach to the treatment of small sites will be clearer, and easier to implement than the current approach. For general development sites the report recommends that the current policy requirement of 40% affordable housing should remain. On smaller sites a more flexible approach may be required, to take into account the variation in viability found by the assessment.
Decisions on these policy suggestions will be made through the Core Planning Strategy and other LDF documents.
Page 130 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 34 of 64 5.3 Transport
5.3.1 Car Parking Standards
Local Indicator TRA1 Amount of completed non-residential development within UCOs A, B and D complying with car-parking standards set out in the local development framework.
No formal monitoring of this measure was possible in the monitoring year 2009/10.
Essex County Council: Revised Vehicle Parking Standards (2009) were adopted by this Council as non-statutory planning guidance within the monitoring year, on the 16th of February 2010.
Policy T14 (Parking) within the East of England Plan suggests that ‘The standards in PPG13 should be treated as maximums, but local authorities may adopt more rigorous standards to reinforce the effects of other measures particularly in regional transport nodes and key centres for development and change’.
The Essex Parking Standards adopted are technically contrary to current national policy, as they have minimum standards rather than maximum. For this reason, it is intended that, for the next Annual Monitoring Report, data analysis will be undertaken, to discover whether this is operating effectively in the area.
5.3.2 Public Transport Accessibility
Local Indicator TRA2 Amount of new residential development within 30 minutes public transport time of: (i) a GP; (ii) a hospital (with and Accident & Emergency department); (iii) a primary school; (iv) a secondary school; (v) areas of employment; and (vi) a major retail centre
Over 90% of residential development (of the 209 total gross dwellings completed this monitoring year) is within 30 minutes public transport of a primary school, a secondary school, a GP’s surgery and a major retail centre. Also, over 85% is within 30 minutes public transport of an employment centre.
However, only a very small proportion is within 30 minutes public transport of a hospital with an A&E department; 10.05%. This is partly because a significant proportion (93 gross units) of this year’s completions were on two large sites: the St Margaret’s Hospital site in Epping; and Epping Forest College in Loughton. These sites are within 36 and 43 minutes of the nearest hospital by public transport, respectively.
Page 131 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 35 of 64 Table 14 - Accessibility of new residential development (all sites) GP Hospital Primary Secondary Retail Total gross Employment Surgery (A&E) School School Centre units Figure 205 21 205 197 182 203 209 % 98.09% 10.05% 98.09% 94.26% 87.08% 97.13% 100.00%
If only sites of more than 10 dwellings are considered (114 gross dwellings), then 100% are within 30 minutes public transport of a GP’s surgery, primary school, secondary school, and a major retail centre. 91.23% are within 30 minutes public transport of an employment area
However, only 9.65% of these 114 are within 30 minutes of a hospital. Most of the remaining 90.35% are on the two sites mentioned above.
Table 15 - Accessibility of new residential development (sites of 10+ gross units) Total GP Hospital Primary Secondary Retail Employment gross School School Centre Surgery (A&E) units Figure 114 11 114 114 104 114 114 % 100.00% 9.65% 100.00% 100.00% 91.23% 100.00% 100.00%
We do not currently have a firm target for this measure. The Local Plan Alterations adopted in July 2006 seek to reduce the travelling distances between new residential development and key services by ensuring that all new developments are sustainable in terms of the availability of public transport.
Page 132 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 36 of 64 5.4 Local Services
5.4.1 Retail, Office and Leisure Development
Local Indicator ROL1 Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development over 1,000m2 (0.1ha)
Two such developments of this size were completed in the 2009/10 monitoring year.
The first was the ‘Conversion and change of use of the Power House and Water Tower into office accommodation’ (Planning reference EPF/0501/07, Building Control reference AI/1416/07) on a site forming part of Area A6, at the Royal Gunpowder Mills site in Powdermill Lane, Waltham Abbey. This development, comprising a total of 1,881.8m2 of office space (Use Class B1), was completed in September 2009. At the time of writing, both the Power House and the Water Tower are occupied.
The second was the ‘Demolition of existing buildings and erection of new 'Lidl' foodstore and construction of five start-up industrial units’ (Planning reference EPF/0501/07, Building Control reference AI/1416/07) at 1 Cartersfield Road, Waltham Abbey. This application comprised 1,643m2 retail (A1), and 1,129m2 light industrial (B1c). The Lidl store was completed, and opened, in February 2010. The business units, now named ‘Abbey Point’, are still under construction at the time of writing. Therefore only 1,643m2 of this development was completed within the monitoring year.
This equates to a total of 3,524.8m2 (0.35ha) completed within 2009/10.
Local Indicator ROL2 Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development over 1,000m2 (0.1ha) within town centres
There were no retail, office or leisure developments of this size completed in the 2009/10 monitoring year within town centres, as both of the above developments fall outside Waltham Abbey Town Centre.
5.4.2 Open Spaces
Local Indicator OPS1 Amount of eligible open spaces managed to Green Flag Award standard
The award is open to any freely accessible public open space that has a site-specific management plan.
There are a number of areas in the district that are eligible to be considered for the Green Flag Award.
Currently, Abbey Gardens (Waltham Abbey), Gunpowder Park (Waltham Abbey), Epping Forest (East London & Essex), and Epping Forest Burial Park (North Weald)
Page 133 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 37 of 64 hold Green Flag Awards, which are reviewed each year. Abbey Gardens and Epping Forest also hold a Green Heritage Site award.
The Audit of Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities, as required by PPG17 is currently being undertaken. All the district’s parishes have been completely surveyed, with extra sites identified by Parish and Town Councils also having been surveyed and included. This first audit stage will now be followed by the assessment stage. This PPG17 audit will form an important part of the LDF evidence base.
5.5 Minerals and Waste
Minerals and waste matters are not within the remit of the District Council, and are dealt with by Essex County Council. Details of these areas will be contained within the AMR of Essex County Council.
5.6 Flood Protection and Water Quality
Core Output Indicator E1 Number of planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on flooding and water quality grounds
Only one application was granted contrary to Environment Agency (EA) advice within the monitoring period. This was EPF/0679/09, for the ‘retention of an existing chalet’ on Roydon Lodge Chalet Estate. The EA objection was towards one part of the Flood Risk Assessment submitted; that it failed to model the flood risk from some culverts nearby.
However, data provided by a company working on behalf of the applicant suggested that in fact the risk of flooding to the site was actually lower than its EA designation (Flood Zone 2). A chalet had been in place on the site for some 50 years, and the officer felt that the evidence provided by the EA was not sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission. Furthermore, the EFDC Land Drainage team did not have any objection to the scheme. As there were no other grounds for refusal, the application was granted.
This Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is currently in production. It is anticipated that Level 1 (the area-wide study) will be completed shortly; the Level 2 (site-specific study) will follow if necessary.
5.7 Biodiversity
Core Output Indicator E2 Change in areas of biodiversity importance
There are a number of internationally, nationally, regionally and locally important sites within the district, which are listed below.
No changes have occurred within the monitoring period, other than the addition of a large number of local wildlife sites (see para 5.7.5).
Page 134 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 38 of 64 Table 16 - Sites of biodiversity importance Designation Area
Special Area of - Epping Forest (part) Conservation (SAC)
- Lea Valley (including Amwell Quarry, Rye Meads, Special Protection Area Turnford and Cheshunt Pits and Walthamstow (SPA) Reservoirs) however, only Turnford and Cheshunt Pits fall partly within this district
- Lea Valley (including Amwell Quarry, Rye Meads, Turnford and Cheshunt Pits and Walthamstow Ramsar Sites Reservoirs) however, only Turnford and Cheshunt Pits fall partly within this district
- Epping Forest (including Wintry Wood, Epping; Garnon Bushes, Coopersale; Yardley Hill, Sewardstonebury; and Lord’s Bushes, Buckhurst Hill) - Hainault Forest (partly within the district) Site of Special Scientific - Royal Gunpowder Factory Woodlands, Waltham Abbey Interest (SSSI) - Roding Valley Meadows, between Chigwell and Loughton - Cornmill Stream and Old River Lea, Waltham Abbey - Hunsdon Mead, Roydon (partly within the district) - River Lee Diversion (a very small part of the Chingford reservoirs SSSI) - Following a review completed in 2009, there are now 222 Local Wildlife Sites of these sites around the district (representing an addition (formerly County Wildlife of roughly 40), identified by the Essex Wildlife Trust Sites) through the Local Wildlife Sites Review. - Roding Valley Meadows, Chigwell - Linder’s Field, Buckhurst Hill - Roughtalley’s Wood, North Weald Bassett - Chigwell Row Wood, Chigwell Local Nature Reserves - Church Lane Flood Meadow, North Weald Bassett - Nazeing Triangle, Nazeing - Home Mead, England's Lane, Loughton - Thornwood Flood Meadow, North Weald - Weald Common Flood Meadows, North Weald
5.7.1 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)
Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are protected sites which have been designated under the EC Habitats Directive. They include natural and semi-natural habitats and other sites containing species of community importance. Member states are required to take measures to maintain and/or restore such habitats and species at or to safe levels for conservation.
The only SAC within Epping Forest District is the main area of Epping Forest, which was designated as a SAC on 1st April 2005 (Measure 8(ii)). This area has a size of 1604.95 hectares.
Page 135 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 39 of 64 Policy NC1 of the Adopted Local Plan, which was saved in September 2007, seeks to provide protection to areas designated as SACs. Policy HC5 (also saved) furthermore protects the ‘historic nature and wildlife value of Epping Forest’, in accordance with the requirements of the City of London as owners and Conservators of the Forest.
The Habitats Directive requires that an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ accompanies all land use plans that may have an impact on a site designated under the Natura 2000 scheme. All SACs, SPAs and RAMSAR sites in Epping Forest District need to be considered in this way in future.
No changes to the extent of the SAC have been made in this monitoring year.
5.7.2 Special Protection Areas (SPAs)
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are protected sites classified in accordance with the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds (also known as the Birds Directive), which came into force in April 1979. Sites are classified for rare and vulnerable birds, listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, and for regularly occurring migratory species.
This Directive requires member states to preserve a sufficient diversity of habitats (the SPAs) for all species of wild birds naturally occurring within their territories.
The Government is required to take appropriate steps to avoid any significant pollution or deterioration of identified habitats, or any other similarly significant disturbance to the birds, except where there is an ‘overriding’ public interest. Parts of the Lea Valley were designated as a SPA in September 2000, a formal recognition of its outstanding importance for waterfowl. The Lea Valley SPA includes Turnford and Cheshunt Pits which fall partly within this District.
The Natura 2000 Assessment for the Lea Valley identifies that the area is under pressure from water quality issues, human recreational activity and over-extraction of surface water. Development for the 2012 London Olympics will necessarily increase this pressure.
Policy NC1 of the Adopted Local Plan (1998), as mentioned above, seeks to protect SSSIs, SPAs and SACs within the district. Policies RST23 and RST24 provide more specific protection and guidance regarding areas within the Lee Valley Regional Park. Policy GB10 also seeks to protect Green Belt land within the Lee Valley Regional Park from inappropriate development. Furthermore, policy CP2 of the Local Plan Alterations (2006) seeks to protect the quality of the rural and built environment, and to enhance and preserve biodiversity, in accordance with policy NC1 and with the Planning Policy Statement 9.
No changes to the extent of SPA sites have been made in this monitoring year.
5.7.3 Ramsar Sites
The Lee Valley RAMSAR site falls partly within Epping Forest District, and extends 447.87 hectares. Only the Turnford and Cheshunt Pits fall partly within this district. Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance created following the adoption of an intergovernmental treaty in 1971 in the Iranian city of Ramsar, now known as the ‘Convention on Wetlands’. Ramsar sites were first designated in the UK in 1976,
Page 136 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 40 of 64 primarily due to their importance for waterbirds. This has led to many of the sites also being designated as SPAs, and as such attention is now also focused on other wetland features.
Both policies NC1 (of the Adopted Local Plan 1998) and CP2 (of the Local Plan Alterations 2006) seek to protect these sites.
No changes to the extent of Ramsar sites have been made in this monitoring year.
5.7.4 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) represent the best sites for wildlife and geology within Great Britain. They are designated by Natural England as a result of their flora, fauna or geological or physiographical (i.e. landform) features. Natural England also provides a statement about the management of the land, and work with owners and land managers to conserve these important sites.
The Council has made a commitment to protect these areas from damage or destruction caused by inappropriate development, and as such policies NC1 (within the Adopted Local Plan 1998) and CP2 (within the Local Plan Alterations of the 2006) are relevant.
No changes to the extent of SSSI sites have been made in this monitoring year.
5.7.5 Local Wildlife Sites
The condition of the Local Wildlife Sites (formerly County Wildlife Sites) in the district has been identified as a local indicator.
A full review of the Local Wildlife Sites in the district was completed in 2009 by Essex Wildlife Trust (report available at: http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Council_Services/planning/forward_planning/LDF/Local_Wildlife_Sites _Review.asp). There are now 222 of these sites around the district (representing an net addition of roughly 40, comprising the declassification of a small number of sites, and the addition of a significant number of new sites). This data will form an important part of the LDF evidence base.
The Countrycare team (the Council’s Countryside Management Service) is performing well against National Indicator NI197 Biodiversity (Local Wildlife Sites), with an additional 46 sites being brought into positive conservation management during 2009/10, bringing the total to 52. Since the end of the monitoring period, a further 14 have been brought into positive conservation management. The team’s target is to have 73 sites in this category by the end of March 2011.
Local Plan policies NC2, NC3 and NC4 all seek to protect Local Wildlife Sites (referred to as County Wildlife Sites in the policies) when proposals for development and changes of use are put forward.
5.7.6 Local Nature Reserves
There are currently nine designated Local Nature Reserves in Epping Forest District, covering an area of 90.37 hectares. They are:
Page 137 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 41 of 64 • Chigwell Row Wood • Church Lane Flood Meadow • Home Mead • Linder’s Field • Nazeing Triangle • Roding Valley Meadows • Roughtalley’s Wood • Thornwood Flood Meadow • Weald Common Flood Meadows
The largest is the Roding Valley Meadows LNR, with the smallest being the Nazeing Triangle LNR.
Countrycare have previously applied to Natural England to have a site in Norton Heath (owned by Epping Forest District Council) designated as a Local Nature Reserve. Natural England refused this request in the past as it felt that the site should be better managed, and that canopy clearing work should be completed. Work on the LNR application is ongoing. Countrycare are also discussing the possible designation of Apes Grove Wood and Great Wood in Lambourne, in conjunction with Essex County Council. Countrycare’s veteran tree hunt is still ongoing, with 2,606 veteran trees recorded so far. Of these, 17 are ‘ancient trees’.
5.8 Renewable Energy
5.8.1 Permitted Schemes
Core Output Indicator E3 Renewable energy generation
This indicator measures renewable energy generation by installed capacity and type. Renewable energy schemes could involve wind turbines, solar panels, combined heat pumps, ground source heat pumps and biomass plants.
No schemes involving renewable energy were completed within the monitoring period.
However, eight applications incorporating renewable energy schemes were granted within the monitoring period – their details are also shown below:
Table 17 - Renewable energy schemes permitted in 2009/10 Application Address Proposal Capacity Date granted ref. First floor rear extension and pitched roof over existing two 104 Palmerston Road EPF/0146/10 storey rear projection, with 2x not given 23/03/2010 Buckhurst Hill, IG9 5LG solar collector panels installed on rear roof slope. Witney Green Farm, Solar panel Installation to the rear EPF/0262/09 Willingale Road, Fyfield, East & West facing roof of the not given 28/04/2009 CM5 0PY existing dwelling.
Page 138 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 42 of 64 Application Address Proposal Capacity Date granted ref. Demolish existing extension and 45 Staples Road, construct new single storey rear EPF/0561/09 not given 03/06/2009 Loughton, IG10 1HR extension with solar panels and sedum roof. Saint James United Installation of a total of 120 no. Reformed Church, solar photovoltaic panels on 17340 EPF/0832/09 26/06/2009 Palmerston Road south facing pitched roof and on kWh Buckhurst Hill, IG9 5NG frames on flat roofs. 29 Paternoster Close, Certificate of lawful development EPF/1601/10 not given 28/09/2010 Waltham Abbey, EN9 3JU for proposed solar roof panels. Single storey rear extension and 30 Forest Avenue, part one, part two storey side EPF/2262/09 not given 19/01/2010 Chigwell, IG7 5BP extension, including installation of solar panels on roof. Certificate of lawful development 12 Paley Gardens, EPF/2294/09 for a proposed installation of solar not given 23/12/2009 Loughton, IG10 2AN panels on roof. Installation of a combined heat Tesco Stores Ltd, and power (CHP) unit within 431 EPF/2357/09 Sewardstone Road, service yard at rear of store to 29/01/2010 kW Waltham Abbey, EN9 1JH provide a sustainable method of powering the store
5.8.2 Policy Analysis
The Local Plan Alterations (2006) contain policies that seek a contribution towards the energy demands of new development in the form of integrated renewable energy equipment. In particular, policies CP4 and CP5 set out the Council’s approach to energy conservation and sustainable building practices. These policies contain advice and suggestions, but they do not contain specific targets for the amount of energy to be generated via renewable sources. Specific targets will of course be approached through the LDF process.
East of England Plan policy ENG1 (Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance) requires that ‘new development of more than 10 dwellings or 1000m2 of non-residential floorspace should secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable of low-carbon sources, unless it is not feasible or viable’. Until newer local policies are in place, it remains quite difficult for Development Control planners within this Council to request that renewable energy schemes be incorporated within prospective developments. Furthermore, it is difficult to judge what is ‘not feasible or viable’ without expert knowledge of the technologies involved. However, planners continue to encourage such considerations, and it is hoped that the number of such schemes will rise accordingly. The Environmental Co- ordinator based in Planning will also be able to assist with advice on such schemes.
The Council’s corporate Climate Change Strategy will help to provide more information on renewable energy and sustainable construction issues, as the policy forming process begins: http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Library/files/Environmental_Health/EFDC_Climate%20Change%20Strategy%20Fin al.pdf
Page 139 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 43 of 64 5.9 Gypsies and Travellers
In addition to Core Indicator H4 above, this Council is required to provide information about the provision made within the district for Gypsies and Travellers.
5.9.1 Number of Sites
There is an important distinction between the number of caravans present at any one time (para 5.9.1.1), and the number of pitches which are permitted (para 5.9.1.2)
The East of England Plan target, of an extra 34 pitches by 2011 (starting from 2008), is based on the number of pitches permitted, not the number of caravans actually present.
5.9.1.1 Caravan Count (actual caravans present)
The Council is required to complete a caravan count of all caravans actually present in the district every 6 months. This data is then collated by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Please note that this is not the same as the figure of pitches which are actually permitted – see para 5.9.1.2.
Data from the last 5 caravan counts is shown below, the most recent having been conducted in July 2010.
Table 18 - Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Count July 08 to July 10 Jul 08 Jan 09 Jul 09 Jan 10 Jul 10
Authorised permanent - public 17 17 16 16 16
Authorised permanent - private 83 76 77 76 83
Authorised temporary 21 29 24 26 27
Authorised transit* 0 0 0 0 0
Unauthorised - tolerated 7 6 5 4 6
Unauthorised - NOT tolerated 34 34 30 14 13 * There are no such sites within Essex
Page 140 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 44 of 64 5.9.1.2 Additional permissions for Gypsy and Traveller pitches
Table 19 shows the permanent additional pitches which have been approved since the start of 2008, up until the time of writing (Dec 10).. Those highlighted were permitted within the monitoring year 2009/10.
Table 19 - Additional permissions for Gypsy and Traveller pitches since 2008 Decision Additional Site Name/ Address Application Number(s) Decision Date pitches
Greenleaver, Hoe Lane, Nazeing. EPF/1914/06 Granted 21/02/2008 4
Tomary, Sedge Green, Roydon EPF/0372/08 Granted 05/06/2008 6
Hoe Lane, Nazeing. CLD/EPF/0783/09 Granted 04/08/2009 1 Page 141 The Dales, Perry Hill, Nazeing EPF/1331/09 Granted 14/09/2009 1
Plot 3A, Moores Estate, Harlow Road, Roydon EPF/1585/09 Granted 02/12/2009 1
Hosanna Lodge, Sedge Green, Roydon EPF/1414/09 Granted 21/01/2010 1
Greenleaver, Hoe Lane, Nazeing. EPF/2254/09 Granted 03/02/2010 5
Springfield, Tylers Cross Nursery, Broadley Common, Roydon. EPF/1892/09 & EPF/1893/09 Granted 15/06/2010 2
Mamelons Farmyard, Waltham Road, Long Green, Nazeing EPF/1131/10 Granted 27/07/2010 4
Carrisbrook, Kiln Road, North Weald Bassett. EPF/1123/10 Granted 02/09/2010 1
Holmsfield (nee Leaside) Nursery, Meadgate Road, Nazeing. EPF/0849/10 Granted on appeal 29/11/2010 8
Total additional pitches permitted since start of 2008 34
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 45 of 64 The East of England Plan target, of an extra 34 pitches by 2011 (starting from 2008), is based on the number of pitches permitted, not the number of caravans actually present.
As shown by the Table 19, the number of permanent, authorised pitches has steadily increased over the last few years, and the 34 additional pitch target was reached in November 2010.
5.9.2 Planning Permissions
As detailed above under Core Indicator H4, in 2009/10, a total of 9 net additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches were granted planning permission, all on fairly small sites. All 9 were given permanent permission.
Furthermore, an appeal against an application for use of land as a private gypsy caravan site which was refused within the monitoring period, was allowed with conditions in December 2009. This was at Hallmead Nursery. 4 pitches were granted on a temporary basis. These are not shown in Table 19, as being temporary, they do not count towards the EEP target.
No additional pitches for Travelling Showpeople were granted permission (no applications for such pitches was submitted).
Please see section 4.0 for more information this Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document.
5.9.3 Assessment of Gypsy and Traveller Needs
The East of England Regional Assembly’s (EERA) ‘Single Issue Review on Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation’ document was published in July 2009. The target figure of new pitches for Gypsies and Travellers for Epping Forest District varied through different stages of the document, but the final policy stipulated an allocation of a minimum of 34 new pitches by 2011.
A Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) for the whole of Essex was published by Fordham Research in November 2009. This GTAA suggested a reduced target of 32 new pitches in the period 2008-2013.
The Secretary of State issued this Council with a Direction in September 2007, to include a separate Development Plan Document (DPD) on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation issues. The Issues and Options stage of consultation took place from November 2008 to February 2009. Local response to the consultation was significant, with over 10,500 people involved in making comments.
Following the formation of the new Coalition Government earlier in 2010, the new Minister for Decentralisation Greg Clark MP confirmed the cancellation of the Direction, on the 6 July 2010. The Council meeting of 27th July agreed to cease further work on the DPD with immediate effect.
Future provision for Gypsies and Travellers will be made through the planning application process, at first through existing, saved Local Plan policy, and in the coming years, through the emerging Local Development Framework. As can be seen
Page 142 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 46 of 64 from the table and graph under 5.9.1, the Council is making good progress against the East of England Plan target.
5.9.4 Policy Analysis
Policy H10A of the Local Plan Alterations (saved by GO East in June 2009) sets out the Council’s current approach to applications for Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites. The policy has so far proved successful in resisting applications for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in unsuitable locations, however it has been recognised (paragraph 9.69a of the Local Plan Alterations) that this policy will need to be reviewed in light of a full assessment of need.
Page 143 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 47 of 64 6.0 Local Indicators
The following Local Indicators have been identified as being of particular prominence in this district, either through Council evidence of an issue, or enquiries by local Councillors and Parish/Town Councils. The adoption of the Local Plan Alterations in July 2006 was intended to have a positive impact on the Council’s performance, and to enable such issues to be more closely monitored. The following information sets out the issues that have been experienced and any action that is planned.
6.1 Town Centres
The Council undertakes retail surveys of town centres and shopping parades every six months in order to inform the implementation of the town centre policies in the Local Plan. The six main centres are:
• Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill • High Street, Epping • High Road, Loughton • The Broadway, Loughton Broadway • High Street, Ongar • Sewardstone Road / Highbridge Street / Market Place, Waltham Abbey
Policy T4 in the Local Plan Alterations (2006) specifies that the area designated ‘key frontage’ within one of the main centres must consist of a minimum of 70% retail use, with a limit of 30% for non-retail uses (measured by length of the shop frontage). A retail use is classified as the standard A1 use class. It also specifies that no more than two adjacent non-retail uses should be allowed to exist within the key retail frontage, regardless of shop frontage length.
Unfortunately, the most recent surveys show that of the six main centres, five have already breached the 30% non-retail limit within their key frontage. The results can be seen in the table below.
Table 20 - Percentage of non-retail use within key frontage of main town centres Change since the Town Centre 2009 2010 last AMR Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill (July 2010) 36.2% 38.9% Worse
High Street, Epping (August 2010) 32.5% 32.5% No change
High Road, Loughton (June 2010) 31.7% 32.6% Worse The Broadway, Loughton Broadway (July 25.9% 15.9% Better 2010) High Street, Ongar (July 2010) 46.5% 47.2% Worse Sewardstone Road / Highbridge Street / Market 30.6% 32.2% Worse Place, Waltham Abbey (August 2010)
Within the 30% Over the 30% non-retail non-retail limit limit – policy breach
As can be seen from the figures above, the surveys show that five out of six of the main town centres have already breached the policy limit within their key frontage
Page 144 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 48 of 64 areas. Policy TC4 may not be strong enough, may not be applied adequately, or may simply no longer be relevant.
Factors which could also have contributed to the drop in retail within the town centres were set out in the 2007 AMR. It was hoped that work towards the new LDF documents would incorporate some measures to help combat this problem, but due to delays as outlined earlier, most of this Council’s LDF documents are not yet in place. However, in the current community visioning consultation, which will feed into the future Issues & Options consultation on the Core Planning Strategy, one of the answer options for the question ‘what planning issues do you think most need to be addressed in your local area?’, was ‘right balance of shops and restaurants’. Once the consultation responses have been analysed, it will be interesting to see whether local people have identified this as a problem.
6.2 Horticultural glasshouses
There has been a long history of horticultural glasshouse development in the Lea Valley area. The development of these glasshouses is considered appropriate in the Green Belt, but to prevent the spread of glasshouses throughout the district the Council has long taken the approach that this development should be contained within particular areas of the Lea Valley.
Policies E13A (New and Replacement Glasshouses) and E13B (Protection of Glasshouse Areas) within the Local Plan Alterations seek to protect and provide glasshouse areas within appropriate areas of the district. The policy of containment has been successful in preventing the spread of glasshouses beyond these designated areas, as the table below demonstrates:
Table 21 - Glasshouse development Total area of Total area of Glasshouse glasshouse Monitoring glasshouse development permitted development permitted Year development permitted in designated in designated (ha) areas (%) areas (ha) 2000/01 13.41 9.30 69.35% 2001/02 5.00 4.30 86.00% 2002/03 22.59 22.59 100.00% 2003/04 11.40 11.40 100.00% 2004/05 23.97 23.85 99.50% 2005/06 2.93 1.72 58.78% 2006/07 9.53 7.68 80.53% 2007/08 1.93 1.92 99.53% 2008/09 3.53 3.37 95.48% 2009/10 1.38 1.38 100.00% Total 95.68 87.52 91.47% * NB Figures and percentages may not total correctly, as site areas of each development were given at an accuracy of 0.00001ha. Data above is rounded to the nearest 0.001ha for ease of reference.
Page 145 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 49 of 64 As can be seen from the above figures, all glasshouse development permitted within the monitoring year was within the designated areas.
6.3 Locally Listed Buildings
Through the Local Plan Alterations, policy HC13A was adopted, which seeks to protect un-(nationally)listed ‘buildings of local architectural or historic importance’, to encourage their maintenance and ensure that they ‘receive special consideration in the exercise of the Development Control process’.
The Local List was finalised in July 2006 and contains approximately 300 entries. Further additions will be made as appropriate when new properties are identified as being worthy of inclusion.
No locally listed buildings were demolished during the monitoring period, nor were any new ones designated.
In September 2009, retrospective consent was given to demolish and re-build part of Dryad’s Hall, in Loughton, which is locally listed. This consent was given as the building had become unsafe during restoration, and so had to be re-built for safety. However it is felt that this was sensitively done, and the building remains on the Local List.
6.4 Bungalows
In the last few years, the issue of the loss of bungalows (particularly in the Theydon Bois area) has been raised by Theydon Bois Parish Council, and by some District Councillors.
The text accompanying Local Plan Alterations policy H4A (Dwelling Mix), states that ‘the Council intends to monitor the number of this type of application in the future…’. Regular, detailed monitoring of this issue has not been possible in recent years, due to the pressure of other work items, such as the former consultation on provision for Gypsies and Travellers. However, data has been provided on several occasions, to individual Development Control Officers, on request.
It has now been possible to bring this monitoring up to date and produce a detailed analysis of the position. The analysis is in two parts: 1) permissions (showing planning permissions given involving the loss or gain of bungalows) and 2) completions (showing the developments actually carried out involving the loss or gain of bungalows). These are shown separately as, clearly, not all planning permissions are carried out. The data is for the entire district.
The data given is for the period 1/4/05 to 11/10/10 (i.e. roughly five and a half financial years). Data is given by settlement, in order to identify whether there is an issue in different areas.
Page 146 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 50 of 64 Table 22 – Bungalow completions 1/4/05 to 11/10/10 Gain of bungalows Loss of bungalows Settlement net gain
Buckhurst Hill 1 0 1 Chigwell 1 2 -1 Epping 0 2 -2 Fyfield 1 0 1 Loughton 4 7 -3 Matching 0 1 -1 Nazeing 1 1 0 North Weald 0 1 -1 Ongar 1 1 0 Roydon 3 3 0 Sheering 1 0 1 Stapleford Abbotts 0 1 -1 Theydon Bois 0 3 -3 Waltham Abbey 9 1 8 Willingale 0 1 -1 TOTALS 22 24 -2
Table 23 – Bungalow permissions 1/4/05 to 11/10/10 Gain of bungalows Loss of bungalows Settlement net gain
Bobbingworth 2 2 0 Buckhurst Hill 4 3 1 Chigwell 1 14 -13 Epping 2 5 -3 Fyfield 0 0 0 High Ongar 1 2 -1 Lambourne 0 4 -4 Loughton 5 18 -13 Matching 0 1 -1 Moreton 0 2 -2 Nazeing 5 4 1 North Weald 1 1 0 Ongar 0 1 -1 Roydon 2 3 -1 Sheering 1 1 0 Stanford Rivers 2 1 1 Stapleford Abbotts 3 7 -4 Theydon Bois 5 10 -5 Waltham Abbey 8 4 4 Willingale 0 1 -1 TOTALS 42 84 -42
As can be seen from the data above, in a period of (more than) the last five years, an actual loss of only 2 net bungalows has taken place, although permission for the loss of 42 net bungalows has been given.
Page 147 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 51 of 64 The data shows that permission has been given for relatively more losses of bungalows in the areas of Chigwell, Loughton, and to a lesser extent, Theydon Bois. However, the actual losses through completions are much lower; it appears that many such permissions granted are never carried out.
To place the completion data in context, Table 24 shows all gains and losses through completions for the same period:
Table 24 – All housing completions by type 1/4/05 to 11/10/10 Net bungalows All net housing completed completed (including bungalows) Gain 22 1,291 Loss 24 145 Net gain -2 1,146
It is not felt that the loss of bungalows is a significant problem, on the basis of this data, but the situation will continue to be monitored through the Annual Monitoring Report.
Page 148 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 52 of 64 Appendices
Page 149 EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 53 of 64 Appendix 1: House price fluctuations 2005-2010
Average house prices 2005-2010
£400,000
£350,000
£300,000 Page 150
£250,000 Averagehouseprice £200,000
£150,000 England & Wales Eastern region Epping Forest District £100,000 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2
(Q (Q (Q (Q (Q (Q (Q (Q
5 (Q 5 5 5 (Q 6 (Q 6 6 (Q 6 (Q 7 (Q 7 (Q 7 (Q 7 (Q 8 (Q 8 8 8 9 (Q 9 (Q 9 9 0 (Q 0 (Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Time - quarterly by year
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 54 of 64 Appendix 2: Job Seekers Allowance Claimants 2006-2010
Job Seeker Allowance Claimants (Proportion of resident population aged 16-64) 2006-2010
5.0%
4.5%
ng JSAng 4.0%
3.5%
3.0% Page 151
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
Great Britain Percentage of resident population aged 16-64 claimi aged16-64population resident Percentageof 0.5% Eastern region Epping Forest District 0.0%
7 8 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 -0 -0 - - - -0 -0 - - - -0 -0 - - - -0 -0 - - - -1 -1 - - - - l - l - l - l l r r r r v r y v y v y n y p v n y p n p n p n p u u u u u a a a a a o a a o a o a o a a J e a J e a J e a J e a J e J J N J M N J M N J M M M S N M M S M S M S M S
Month/Year
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 55 of 64 Appendix 3: Extract from the Local Development Scheme (October 2006 – Amended as per Direction October 2007)
2009/10 AMR Period Page 152
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 56 of 64 Appendix 4: Details of housing completions 2009/10
Gross Net Site Dwellings Application Land Dwelling dwellings dwellings Address Development Details Area lost Reference Status Type gained gained (ha) 09/10 09/10 09/10 Demolition of existing 'Coach House' and EPF/2208/05 The Coach House, Wyldwoods erection of new dwelling in same footprint & & Woodgreen Road, Waltham PDL House 0.827 1 0 1 Re-building of Coach House. (Amendment to EPF/0264/09 Abbey, Essex, EN9 3SB planning approval EPF/2208/05) EPF/0882/03, Clements, Pensons Lane, Demolition of existing dwelling and erection EPF/0283/04, Greensted Green, Ongar, PDL House 0.790 1 1 0 of a replacement dwelling. EPF/0825/04 Essex, CM5 9LF
Page 153 Demolition of existing residence and erection Olivers, Daws Hill, Waltham of a five bedroom detached house including EPF/1024/07 PDL House 0.539 1 1 0 Abbey, E4 7QU rooms within roof and detached garage. (Revised application) Demolition of existing house and erection of 27 Piercing Hill, Theydon Bois, EPF/1009/08 new house with detached garage. (Amended PDL House 0.389 1 1 0 CM16 7JW application) Amendment to planning approval EPF/389/07 for the renewal of planning Monkhams Farm Barns, consent EPF/2019/01 for the conversion of EPF/1708/07 Holyfield Road, Waltham Greenfield Houses 0.626 3 0 3 existing barns and stables to form 3 no. Abbey, EN9 2EP dwellings, conversion of stables to car port/garage. Suttons Manor, London Road, Refurbishment and conversion back to EPF/0817/06 Stapleford Tawney, Essex, PDL Flats 1.944 10 0 10 residential use, 10 flats. RM4 1BF
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 57 of 64 Gross Net Site Dwellings Application Land Dwelling dwellings dwellings Address Development Details Area lost Reference Status Type gained gained (ha) 09/10 09/10 09/10 Land adjacent to 36 Blackacre Erection of detached, 2 storey dwelling with EPF/0814/06 Road, Theydon Bois, Essex PDL House 0.164 1 0 1 integral garage CM16 7LU
The Roffey Barn, Harlow Tye Conversion of barn to dwelling. (Revised EPF/1277/06 Greenfield House 0.158 1 0 1 Road, Matching, CM17 0PE application)
Demolition of existing detached house and 45 Spareleaze Hill, Loughton, EPF/1665/07 construction of new dwelling.(Revised PDL House 0.133 1 1 0
Page 154 Essex, IG10 1BS application) Oak Lodge, Epping New Road, Demolition of existing dwelling and EPF/0007/07 PDL House 0.116 1 1 0 Buckhurst Hill, Essex, IG9 5UA construction of a replacement dwelling.
Bournebridge Garden Centre, Change of use of land from Garden Centre Oak Hill Road, Stapleford to residential and the erection of six EPF/0425/03 PDL Houses 0.874 5 0 5 Abbotts, RM4 1JH (Now known detached houses and garages. (Revised as Kensington Park) application)
Land to rear of Lynfield (now known as Bassetts Lodge), EPF/2310/07 Erection of 4 bedroom bungalow. PDL Bungalow 0.106 1 0 1 Harlow Road, Roydon, Essex, CM19 5HH Crownlands Barn, Chelmsford, EPF/0361/05 Road, High Ongar, Essex, Conversion of barn to dwelling. Greenfield House 0.103 1 0 1 CM5 9NN Goodymead, Loughton Lane, Demolish existing bungalow and erection of EPF/0772/06 Theydon Bois, Epping, CM16 new two storey property with new vehicular PDL House 0.100 1 1 0 7JZ access. (Revised application)
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 58 of 64 Gross Net Site Dwellings Application Land Dwelling dwellings dwellings Address Development Details Area lost Reference Status Type gained gained (ha) 09/10 09/10 09/10 Land adjacent to 64 Morgan Crescent, Theydon Bois, , Outline application for the erection of EPF/0401/06 PDL House 0.092 1 0 1 CM16 7DX (Now known as 2A dwelling (revised application). Woodland Way) Love Apple Farm, 156 Crooked EPF/1215/07 Mile, Waltham Abbey, Essex Erection of a replacement dwelling PDL House 0.091 1 1 0 EN9 2ES Tadgells, Carters Green, Conversion and change of use of barn to EPF/0328/09 Greenfield House 0.088 1 0 1 Matching, Essex, CM17 0NX form dwelling.
Page 155 11 Woodfield Terrace, High Proposed division of property to provide EPF/0701/08 Road, Thornwood Common, PDL Houses 0.165 2 1 1 additional 1 bed cottage. Epping, CM16 6LL Spindrift, Bournebridge Lane, Demolition of existing and erection of EPF/1727/07 Stapleford Abbotts, Essex, replacement bungalow. (Revised PDL Bungalow 0.082 1 1 0 RM4 1LT application)
22 St John's Road, Loughton, Demolition of existing house and erection of EPF/1679/07 PDL House 0.077 1 1 0 Essex, IG10 1RZ new dwelling.
Theydon Lodge, Coppice Row, Erection of detached house and garages EPF/1561/07 Theydon Bois, Epping, CM16 PDL House 0.076 1 0 1 (revised application). 7DL Greys Farm, Green Glade, EPF/1500/05 Erection of agricultural workers dwelling. PDL House 0.066 1 0 1 Theydon Bois, Essex Erection of a detached dwelling with garage 111 Monkswood Avenue, EPF/2509/07 and access and revised access to no. 111 PDL House 0.060 1 0 1 Waltham Abbey, EN9 1LJ Monkswood Avenue. (Amended application)
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 59 of 64 Gross Net Site Dwellings Application Land Dwelling dwellings dwellings Address Development Details Area lost Reference Status Type gained gained (ha) 09/10 09/10 09/10 Chestnuts, Nursery Road, Replacement house. (Amended proposal to EPF/0869/06 PDL House 0.060 1 1 0 Loughton, IG10 4EF EPF/1359/05)
Demolition of existing dwelling with proposed 12 Brook Rise, Chigwell, IG7 EPF/1820/07 new build. Proposed plans as per approved PDL House 0.050 1 1 0 6AP planning application EPF/0591/06
Adjacent to 3 Brook Rise, Erection of 2 no. four bedroom houses and 2 EPF/1015/06 PDL House 0.097 2 0 2 Chigwell, Essex, IG7 6AP no. double garages. (Revised application) Page 156 Land adjacent to 18 Palmers Additional attached dwelling to end of EPF/2216/08 Hill, Epping, CM16 6SQ (Now terrace and erection of detached garage to PDL House 0.046 1 0 1 known as 20 Palmers Hill) rear of site. Reserved matters application for the Kintor, Blythe Road, Roydon, demolition of existing dwelling and erection EPF/1342/06 PDL House 0.091 1 1 0 EN11 0BB of 2 no. two storey detached houses. (Revised application)
St Margaret’s Hospital, The Plain, Epping, Essex, CM16 Reserved matters application for 132 6TL (Now known as Kings dwellings, siting, design and external EPF/1350/08 PDL Houses 5.649 41 0 41 Wood Park, Boleyn Row, appearance in compliance with condition 2 Aragon Mews, Seymour of EPF/2297/04. Chase, King Henrys Walk) Spains Hall (The Lodge) Demolition of existing lodge and erection of EPF/1900/07 Spains Hall Road, Willingale PDL Bungalow 0.042 1 1 0 new agricultural workers dwelling. Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QE
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 60 of 64 Gross Net Site Dwellings Application Land Dwelling dwellings dwellings Address Development Details Area lost Reference Status Type gained gained (ha) 09/10 09/10 09/10 Demolition of existing detached dwelling and EPF/0174/05 57A Morgan Crescent, erection of 1 no. detached house and 1 no. (allowed Theydon Bois, Essex, CM16 PDL Houses 0.117 3 1 2 pair of semi-detached houses (revised appeal) 7DU application). 5 Centre Drive, Epping, Essex, EPF/0744/09 Proposed new attached dwelling. PDL House 0.036 1 0 1 CM16 4JH Land adjacent to 11 Drayton Erection of a first floor rear extension and a Avenue, Loughton, Essex, EPF/2689/07 new attached dwelling to side garden PDL House 0.036 1 0 1 IG10 3DF (Now known as 15 (revised application). Drayton Avenue) Page 157 Demolition of existing and rebuild of new 6 Priory Road, Loughton, EPF/0219/09 extended semi-detached bungalow with PDL House 0.032 1 1 0 Essex, IG10 1AF front, side and rear dormer windows. Land adjacent to 14 Pound Close, Nazeing, Waltham EPF/2057/02 Erection of one detached house. PDL House 0.030 1 0 1 Abbey, EN9 2HR. (Now known as 14A Pound Close) 23 Hemnall Street, Epping, Demolition of existing bungalow and erection EPF/2632/07 PDL Houses 0.059 2 1 1 Essex, CM16 4LU of 2 new dwellings. (Revised application)
76a Palmerston Road, Erection of new attached dwelling. (Re- EPF/0310/06 PDL House 0.028 1 0 1 Buckhurst Hill, Essex, IG9 5LG submission)
Colemans Farm, Toot Hill Conversion and adaptation to form two EPF/2628/07 Road, Ongar, CM5 9QN (Now bedroom dwelling with garden, boundary Greenfield Bungalow 0.027 1 0 1 known as Dairy Cottage) fencing, parking and landscaping
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 61 of 64 Gross Net Site Dwellings Application Land Dwelling dwellings dwellings Address Development Details Area lost Reference Status Type gained gained (ha) 09/10 09/10 09/10 90A and 90B Hemnall Street, Demolition of two dwellings and erection of EPF/1469/08 Epping, CM16 4LY (Now PDL Houses 0.081 3 2 1 three detached dwellings. known as 1-3 Chapel View)
32 Pecks Hill, Nazeing, EN9 Demolition of existing buildings and erection EPF/1301/03 2NY (Now known as 32A PDL Houses 0.067 3 1 2 of three detached dwellings. Pecks Hill) Demolition of existing bungalow and erection
Page 158 2A The Uplands, Loughton, of a replacement building containing three EPF/1380/07 PDL Flats 0.061 3 1 2 IG10 1NH apartments. (Revision to planning approval EPF/636/07) 94-96 High Road, North Erection of 6 no. flats with associated car EPF/1280/05 PDL Flats 0.120 6 2 4 Weald, Epping, CM16 6BY parking. (Revised application) Land adjacent to 6 Whitehills Road, Loughton, IG10 1TS EPF/1346/06 Erection of two storey end of terrace house. PDL House 0.016 1 0 1 (Now known as 6A Whiltehills Road) Demolition of existing building and erection 19 New Farm Drive, of 4 no. 2 bed flats and 1 no. 1 bed flat EPF/1730/08 PDL Flats 0.079 5 1 4 Lambourne, Essex, RM4 1BS including 8 no car parking spaces. (Revised application)
Epping Forest College, Border's Lane, Loughton, IG10 Reserved matters application for 268 no. 3SA (Now known as College Flats / EPF/2100/06 residential dwellings and associated PDL 4.220 52 0 52 Close, The Square, The Houses infrastructure. Roding, College Place, Abbess Terrace and Leaden Close)
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 62 of 64 Gross Net Site Dwellings Application Land Dwelling dwellings dwellings Address Development Details Area lost Reference Status Type gained gained (ha) 09/10 09/10 09/10 Proposed conversion of existing dwelling 1 Birch Close, Buckhurst Hill, EPF/2167/07 into 2 no. 3 bedroom dwellings including two PDL Houses 0.043 2 1 1 IG9 6HR storey side & first floor rear extensions. 162-164 High Street, Ongar, Conversion of outbuilding into two storey EPF/2188/07 PDL House 0.009 1 0 1 CM5 9JJ residential dwelling.
Demolition of existing residential buildings 46-48 Albert Road, Buckhurst and redevelop with 2 x three storey EPF/1050/05 PDL Flats 0.100 11 2 9 Hill, IG9 6BH residential blocks with a total of 11 no. units. (Revised application) Page 159 EPF/2673/07, Demolition of bungalow and erection of one 32 Edward Court, Waltham EPF/1592/08, detached and two semi detached houses. PDL Houses 0.025 3 1 2 Abbey, Essex, EN9 3HZ EPF/1828/08 (Revised application) Site of former garage block, corner of Westbury Road and Erection of 6 no. one bedroom flats and car EPF/1738/05 PDL Flats 0.049 6 0 6 Lane, Buckhurst Hill, Essex, parking for five cars. (Revised application) IG9 Land at The Triangle Garage, Smart's Lane, Loughton, IG10 Demolition of existing garage and erection of EPF/1910/04 PDL Flats 0.030 4 0 4 4BU (Now known as The 4 no. 2 bed flats together with 1 no. A1 unit. Triangle) Rear of Abbeyrose House, Demolition of part of existing building and 179-181 High Street, Ongar, EPF/0685/06 replace with new structure from first floor PDL Flats 0.015 4 0 4 CM5 9JG (Now known as 1-4 and above to provide 4 no. new apartments. Abbeyrose Court)
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 63 of 64 Gross Net Site Dwellings Application Land Dwelling dwellings dwellings Address Development Details Area lost Reference Status Type gained gained (ha) 09/10 09/10 09/10 Demolition of buildings and provision of 1-7A Station Road, Epping, vehicular access from adjoining site, erection EPF/1227/05 CM16 4HA (Now known as of 7 no. residential units and 4 no. PDL Flat 0.010 7 5 2 Flacks Mews) commercial (A1,A2) units and parking for seven cars. (Revised application)
TOTALS 209 33 176 Page 160
EFDC AMR 2009/10 Page 64 of 64