Contributions to the 2021 Local Plan

We must reduce the carbon footprint of construction. Currently 80 tonnes CO2 is embodied in a 2 bed house. The equivalent of 5 family cars or 24 flights to Hong Kong!

Instead, make housing our carbon sink. Go back to wood! Cross Laminated timber CLT can build up to 18 storeys. Strong enough for any house or commercial buildings in Uttlesford! CLT would support a new forestry industry as well.

When buildings are demolished, the wood can be re-used, as in past centuries. A sustainable, circular model.

Other exciting materials: Green concretes include ashcrete, hemp crete, recycled plastic concrete. Some even absorb CO2 as they harden.

Green steel – made from recycled scrap, which we currently export, using electric arc furnaces.

Avoid bricks. They embody a high carbon cost in manufacture and transport.

We can’t dictate to developers, but by setting ambitious clear carbon targets, based on reaching carbon zero by 2030, we will be encouraging and giving permissions to developers who are willing to apply these technologies and stimulate new sustainable industries.

Reduced carbon footprint of operation = reduced costs for the householder.

Energy efficiency will make homes cheaper to run and end fuel poverty. We are burning £5 notes every day through poorly insulated roofs, walls and windows… especially those who can least afford it.

Heat exchange of water and ventilation technologies will get massively cheaper when they are fitted as standard.

Energy

Gas should no longer be supplied to new developments. It will be a redundant investment by 2030. New home owners and renters should become the champions of clean domestic energy.

Solar panels supplied as standard on homes and mandatory on all commercial builds.

Support community energy generation in all new developments, for example by installing ground source heat pumps on all playing fields and green spaces. This will enable developers to demonstrate lower operational carbon.

Community energy companies and co-operatives could enable shared ground source heat pumps systems in rural areas which are dependent on oil. It would solve the problem of frequent oil thefts!

Air conditioning should be achieved through natural cooling systems and brise soleil design… or deciduous trees!

Affordability

Green houses will be cheaper houses. We must stop talking about sustainability ‘premiums’. Low CO2 standards mean that householders will simply face the cost of retrofitting later.

Lower fuel bills will more than make up for initial investment.

Affordability and sustainability are very effectively provided by Modular homes, manufactured in local factories. £80,000 for a 2 bedroom house. A quarter of the average price in Uttlesford! Fully equipped, but excluding the cost of land or groundwork. They take just 3 days to build on site.

They could provide the basis of a dynamic council, privately rented and rent-to-buy market.

Retrofitting

Nothing must be built now that is soon going to need costly retrofitting.

Car charging for every home.

Multi generational housing for the young, the old, the divorced – we are not all nuclear families any more…

Our Local Plan should

• make sustainable transport choices easy, preferred option;
• prioritise walking, cycling and public transport;
• promote activity and social interaction, contributing to health and inclusion;
• incorporate green infrastructure and wildlife corridors to help improve biodiversity

It should take a ‘vision and validate’ approach, not predict and provide, which results in more cars.

Location and connectivity

The CIHT paper ‘Better Planning, Better Transport, Better Places’ should underpin decisions about housing locations.

Sustainability assessments must calculate the carbon costs of the lifestyles generated by developments: the carbon costs of commuters, school children and shoppers.

Locations must be aligned with transport from the outset, starting from the existing sustainable transport, particularly the rail system, which is currently the lowest carbon form of travel.

The vast majority of commuters should be able to walk or cycle to train stations, not have to catch buses in addition to their trains.

Mobility hubs should be considered, using electric shuttle buses for first-and-last-mile transport to and from the train stations, integrated with active travel routes.

Active travel must be at the heart of the design process.

Cycling

Identify and prioritise further cycling routes throughout the district, including safe links between villages, Safe School Cycle Routes and cycle lanes which run contra one-way systems.

Explore cycle lanes on farmland and disused railway tracks such as Saffron Walden to Ashdon, Bartlow, Linton and Cambridge.

Walking

All facilities can be easily reached by, parents with prams, children and the elderly. Benches should be included for the elderly, as should toilet facilities.

Routes should follow desire lines.

New developments should obey the 15 minute rule: all facilities within 15 minutes’ walk of homes, promoting health and social interaction.

Trains

All new development must have easy, active travel access to clean transport, particularly the rail system.

Ambitious planning should extend that system. Re-instate the line along the Flitch Way from Stansted Mountfitchet to Braintree or extend a new line from Stansted Airport past Little Easton to Dunmow would open up powerful new corridors of sustainable transport and connectivity to London.

Buses

For bus travel to be effective and attractive it must:

• Use integrated, cashless ticketing systems that are valid with all service providers
• Connect with rail services waiting for delayed trains
• Include electronic communication at all bus stops

Buses only really have high credibility when they operate on a segregated infrastructure, free from traffic. Time for a new, cleaner guided busway system!

Cars

Planning must promote the swiftest possible switch to electric vehicles with:

• EV charging available to all households
• Fast EV charging at car parks, leisure centres, supermarkets, petrol stations etc

Wild life corridors should be incorporated into the design of all transport infrastructures to promote bio diversity and improved quality of life.

Garden communities

The Town and Country Planning Association Guide recommends:

• 50% of trips to be made by non-car means, with a goal to increase to at least 60%;
• public transport nodes and neighbourhood facilities should be a short walk from every home.
• homes should be within 800 metres of schools for children under 11.
• walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure needs are met before major roads are delivered,
• layout is designed around active travel, social, cultural and economic activity, not parking and cars.

If we are serious about biodiversity, we must start with SOIL.

1. The biodiversity contained in topsoil should be considered as a fundamental environmental asset. There are billions of micro-organisms and invertebrates in every handful, on which our survival depends.
2. Soil should be included in calculation of biodiversity net gain of after development.

Typically in the gardens of new homes, turfs sit directly on clay and subsoil. Where does all the topsoil go? Developers also provide football pitches with grass seeded over subsoil. Soil is not an asset of the developer and is not to be sold as such.

Topsoil should be removed from the footprint of buildings, roads and car parks and on constrained sites it cannot easily be stored, but it should only be removed under licence and remain a public asset at the disposal of the local authority.

Soils crucially sequestrate carbon from the atmosphere. This must be maximised on both private and public land. Judicious use of solar farms on agricultural land could both increase biodiversity and sequester carbon into the soil, helping it to regenerate.

We need a nuanced policy with regard to solar farms that encourages best ecological practice (see supplementary document).

Clean energy production, carbon sequestration, increased bio-diversity and restored soils that can go back into food production: a quadruple benefit if we can get the policy right!

Insects and wildflowers

We have experienced 75% loss of flying insect biomass over 30 years. They are worth over £500 million pa in crop pollination and our lives depend on them.

We lost 58% of butterflies on farmed land in just 10 years and 97% of our wildflower meadows since 1930, on which insects depend. So:

1. Identify road verges of particular value for establishment of wild-flowers. ‘Special verges’ need to be substantially increased.
2. Set an initial target of 25% of cemeteries and churchyards left unmown and planted with wildflowers.
3. Identify other public areas for wildflowers or rewilding, such as Saffron Walden castle and work with private landowners, such as water companies.

Rivers

1. Exclude, or put rigorous conditions on, development close to rivers or groundwater;
2. Increase standards of water conservation;
3. Reduce the permitted discharge level of phosphates from farmland;
4. Only permit development where no further reduction in the aquifer can be assured.

Trees and wildlife corridors

Identify land for tree planting, particularly broadleaf trees that will create and support wildlife corridors.

Ensure early years initial tree management.

Explore ways in which TPOs might be made on the grounds of ecological and environmental factors. This requires a re-definition of ‘amenity’ as it is currently applied. Maybe along the lines of the Agriculture Bill’s concept of ‘Public Goods’.

The calculation of ‘amenity value’ needs to be updated. The CAVAT method, merely assesses visual value based on size, population density, the crown, health and life expectancy. The biodiversity hosted by the tree and carbon sequestered are ignored. LA’s and forestry organisations should lobby to change this.

Saplings are not an adequate replacement for mature trees, with all the insect life and biodiversity they host, and it is not for 10 years that they start to extract any significant amounts of CO2.

Protect both scrub woodland and established woods from deforestation, as both will be varied sources of biodiversity.

Woodland Trust targets of 30% tree cover on all new developments. We should come close to that.

Our soil has been damaged by decades of modern farming practices. Mono-culture, extensive use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers, have damaged the structure and fertility of our soils. Soil simply can’t just keep on giving, indeed, in some areas, we have just 60 harvests left.

Well managed solar farms, however, can encourage greater botanical diversity. Wild flowers and hedgerows provide pollen for insects and bees, as well as nesting and food for birds, bats and small mammals.

Meanwhile the grass, unharvested, like a medieval fallow field, dies back into the soil, taking its sugars with it, which slowly rebuild new micro-organic and invertebrate life.

This is also the process that sequesters carbon back into our soils. Clean energy production, carbon sequestration, increased biodiversity and soil regeneration: a quadruple benefit in terms of mitigating our impending climate catastrophe!

Uttlesford District Council have the opportunity to pioneer a balanced policy:

1. Maximise the installation of solar panels on all commercial, industrial and public roofs. This should have been policy a decade ago.
2. When permission is sought for a solar farm, require soil samples to be taken. If the soil is indeed rich and fertile, refuse permission. If it has been denuded of biodiversity and structure, then a period of recovery as a solar farm may revive its fertility for future food production.
3. Insist on projects that enhance our hedgerows, wildflowers, insect, bird and animal life, to ensure that the environmental benefits of solar farms are maximised.
4. Give time limited planning permission, so that, once the soils have recovered, the land can be returned to improved agricultural use, with the solar panels relocated on impoverished soil elsewhere. This will require some research into the timescales required for soil regeneration. It is likely also to deter companies who are solely interested in profit.

In all these matters, let’s be guided by the science and avoid emotive language about ‘trashing the countryside’. We must take the long view and ask ourselves what is in the best interests of our children in terms of ensuring they have a survivable planet to live on. Our legacy at the moment is appalling. We must do everything we can to improve it.

The continued support of Day Centres is crucial to the wellbeing and health of the elderly and other vulnerable groups. Their provision should be included in any local plan. They are surely cost effective in terms of reducing the mental health impacts of loneliness.

The community acquisition of the Railway Arms could provide a tremendous example of how a pub can become the hub of a community with mother and toddler groups, repair shops, a sensory garden, games for children and teenagers, community events and celebrations, book clubs… The UDC should factor this potential into planning decisions and support such community projects where pubs are liable to closure around all the villages of Uttlesford as a way of promoting health and wellbeing.

Churches and church halls should be designed as flexible spaces for use every day of the week, as the Baptist Church is in Saffron Walden. Grants should assist them to become energy efficient or to support the removal of pews to create flexible spaces.

The 15 minute community concept must be applied in planning such that facilities that promote social cohesion, community activities and support for the lonely are within 15 minutes walk of the vast majority of Uttlesford residents.

Green spaces are vital to our physical and mental wellbeing. Paths should be well maintained, and those closest to village centres to be of a quality that enable the elderly to negotiate them safely. Designated walks could be created in every village. They should start near toilet provision and include plenty of seating en route.

Where a developer is providing green spaces and playing fields, they should install a ground source/geothermal heating system, in conjunction with a community energy company to provide clean, cheap energy to the houses in the development.

Public green spaces should permit exercise classes to operate free of charge or at a nominal cost. Currently no bootcamp or exercise class can operate on Saffron Common because the fees are prohibitive. It should be full of yoga classes, tai chi classes for the elderly, circuit training classes etc, which generate the best health returns when they are professionally led. But this immediately attracts charges that don’t fit the tight margins of the business. This needs to change.

Before we build, we should establish why we want the houses and why people would want to live in them. There needs to be a VISION.

The dire situation in Elsenham is the result of the absence of vision: houses crammed opportunistically into available spaces without any sense of place or community.

People choose Saffron Walden, for example, for the market, the architecture, the schools, Saffron Hall: the amenities, aesthetics and lifestyle. Planted communities such as Saltaire, Port Sunlight, Bournville and Letchworth Garden City had purpose, to be working or commuter towns – in which case there was an excellent railway line!

Possible purposes could be:

• Science Park
• Sustainability Flagship
• Velo City
• Airport
• Forest Community
• Start-up business hub
• Direct London Commuting
• Hospital and Health
• Secondary Education flagship

Transport is critical to all of these.

Two stations have borne the brunt of ad hoc development on our north/south railway line: Newport and Elsenham, while Wendens Ambo seems untouched out of deference to the Audley End estate.

We have a major east/west corridor, from Bishops Stortford to Dunmow, Braintree, served by the A120 and B1256, but the railway line was removed by Beeching and the Flitch way fails to cross the M11.

If we are to build 14,000 new houses, more than Saffron Walden and Great Dunmow combined, there must be an adequate infrastructure. A bus service does not count as an adequate infrastructure. A new railway line is needed. Extending though the Stansted Airport terminus, Little Easton CP, and connecting with a restored railway line on the Flitch Way just short of Dunmow, before continuing to Braintree.

Serious ambition is called for; equal to the vast numbers of new houses being asked of us. A railway would bring economic benefit for generations.

It would open up the prospect of:

• Forest communities in Little Easton CP, blending with the recreated ancient forest
• A cycling network based on the Flitch way, connecting with Bishops Stortford at last and extending to Colchester
• Commuting by direct train to London and Cambridge from communities along the east/west corridor
• Abundant wildlife corridors which also connect to Hatfield Forest, Eastend Wood and Eseley Wood.
• Extending the proposed Oxford to Cambridge line through to Braintree and the east coast!

As for the Velo City concept of clusters of villages linked by cycle routes, there is potential involving the villages of Widdington, Debden, Newport, Wicken Bonhunt, Quendon and Rickling.

Adequate, sustainable water supply must be ensured before building. Is there any evidence that we have enough water for 14,000 new homes?