All of the questions below were submitted to the Local Development Framework Team in time for the 19th November deadline on the Hereford Preferred Option consultation. Each Questioner was invited to submit one of their questions to the Full Council meeting on the 19th as well. In the process of doing this we learned that many of the questions were too complex to be treated as one question. Some were rewritten and submitted in time for the meeting on the 19th. The results can be seen here.
Questioners are now in the process of submitting their full questions under Environmental Information Regulations or Freedom of Information where appropriate. The results of the formal process can be seen on the EIR/FOI requests page.
——————–
THE VISION
from Melodie Winch
THE COUNTY’S CARBON FOOTPRINT
See answer to EIR on this subject.
——————–
from Professor Allen Fisher
REDUCING DEPENDENCY ON THE PRIVATE CAR — COST OF TRAVEL
The Vision states that ‘dependency on the private car will be reduced’ (para 2.5) and that a network of cycleways, footpaths and bus priority lanes will reduce resident’s reliance on the private car’ (para 2.4). If this to be the case, then
a) Why is the lowest overall cost of travel for car occupants (Hereford Relief Road Interim Forecasting Report Sustainable Option Packages, para 1.4) in 2026 the determining factor in choice of infrastructure and housing locations?
b) How have the ‘overall costs of travel’ to people travelling on foot, by bicycle and by public transport been calculated and what weight have these been given in choosing transport and housing options for Hereford?
c) What externalities have been taken into account in appraising the costs and benefits of securing the lowest overall cost of travel for car occupants?
[see Council Meeting 19 November 2010 Q.11 for partial answer to simplified question]
——————————
from RS
TRAVEL IN HEREFORD BY SUSTAINABLE MODES
See answer to EIR 420 (Future of Transport Choice in Hereford)
——————–
from Anonymous and Richard Branczik
A CONGESTION FREE CITY — HIGHWAY CAPACITY AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT MEASURES
——————–
from Paige Mitchell
A CONGESTION FREE CITY — LEVELS OF CAR TRAFFIC
See answer to EIR 414, amended question ‘Journey times and changes in journey times for all modes’
———————————-
from Debbie Scott and Carole Protherough
A CONGESTION FREE CITY — LEVELS OF THROUGH TRAFFIC
——————–
from Richard Branczik
A NETWORK OF GOOD QUALITY FOOTPATHS AND CYCLE WAYS
Hereford — Issues and opportunities (para 2.9) specifies in the vision for 2026, ‘A city accessed by a network of good quality footpaths and cycle ways.’ If the dedicated cycle path in Union Walk, surely the shortest and most pointless cycle path by any standard, is anything to go by, then paragraph 2.9 must be approached with great caution and circumspection.
a) How does the Council define ‘good quality footpaths’ and what does it mean by ‘cycle ways’?
b) Can it point to any already in existence within the city and its purlieus?
c) How much has it spent over the 12 years of its existence on maintaining and improving the road network in Hereford for a) pedestrians, b) cyclists and c) motorists?
d) How much has it spent over the 12 years of its existence on footpaths and off road infrastructure for cyclists?
e) Given the apparently low level of spending (relative to investment in motorised travel) dedicated to those who choose to travel by foot or cycle, why should we believe that things will be any different in the future?
——————-
from Carole Protherough
TRAFFIC CONGESTION CAUSED BY A SINGLE RIVER CROSSING — ORIGIN AND DESTINATION OF TRAFFIC ON THE GREYFRIARS BRIDGE
——————–
from David Straker
TRAFFIC CONGESTION CAUSED BY A SINGLE RIVER CROSSING — DRIVER RESPONSES TO CONGESTION
Hereford — Issues and opportunities (para 2.9) identifies the issue of ‘traffic congestion caused by a single river crossing and trunk road through the city.’
a) What evidence does the Council have on whether the single river crossing could be discouraging car use?
b) What studies has the Council undertaken of the potential for an additional river crossing to encourage increased numbers of car trips?
[see Council Meeting 19 November 2010 Q.14 for answer to revised question]
——————–
from Hubert Porte
IMPROVING AIR QUALITY IN HEREFORD
——————–
from Richard Priestley
The term “sustainable economic growth” is used in the LDF without proper definition.
Please define both terms: “sustainable economic growth” and “unsustainable economic growth”
My view is that growth in some industries is sustainable; for other industries radical contraction is a pre-requisite for humanity’s sustainability as a species.
[see Council Meeting 19 November 2010 Q.5 for answer to revised question]
HEREFORD SPATIAL STRATEGY
from Steve Horsfield
Herefordshire needs to shoulder its share of the burden of English population growth.
What modelling has taken place of the economic and social consequences of the following:
a) the increasing Herefordshire population, allowing and encouraging that increase,
b) a decline in employment in key sectors and firms – Bulmers, Sun Valley, Wiggins etc.
c) imminent cuts in employment in the two remaining big Hereford employers, the local authority and the NHS,
d) the existing unusual age and demographic profile of Herefordshire which means that it has a low level of economic activity i.e. labour force participation, in the first place,
e) the knowledge that Hereford in particular and most of Herefordshire have insufficient transport links for practical commuting to work elsewhere?
What are the outcomes of that modelling process, particularly in terms of the proportion of Herefordshire residents in employment and the comparative age distribution of the Herefordshire population?
Until such time as there are indications of realistic prospects for significantly increasing the proportion of residents in employment, should Herefordshire be deemed to be full?
[see Council Meeting 19 November 2010 Q.13 for answer to simplified question]
——————–
from Anonymous
‘GROWTH AGENDA’
On 6 July 2010, Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goverment, revoked Regional Spatial Strategies under s.79 (6) of the Local Democracy and Economic Development Act 2009 with the promise that ‘the new planning system will be clear, efficient and will put greater power in the hands of local people, rather than regional bodies.’ ‘The revocation of Regional Strategies will make local spatial plans, drawn up in conformity with national policy, the basis for local planning decisions.’ (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2010, ‘Revoking Regional Strategies’, Written Statement to the House of Commons 6 July 2010, accessed http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/corporate/regionalstrategies 15 October 2010).
As the Regional Strategy will no longer form part of the Development Plan, and decisions on housing supply and other planning matters now rest with local councils without the framework of regional numbers and plans,
Why is the Council sticking to imposed central targets planning targets for house building and retail land requirements?
[see Council Meeting 19 November 2010 Q.4 for answer to question]
——————-
from Anonymous
Is there a plan or model available for the ‘sustainable communities’ and energy neutral housing that will be required for these developments?
[see Council Meeting 19 November 2010 Q.16 for answer to question]
——————–
from Rebecca Roseff
QUESTIONS ON GROWTH, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
1. One of the justifications for growth is we need it to improve wages and services in the county.
a) How much new housing have we had in the last five years?
b) How much have wages gone up as a result.
[see Council Meeting February 4th 2011 Q.1 for answer to revised question]
2. Analysis of housing needs show that some of the new housing will be occupied by people coming into the county.
a) What analysis has been done of where people will come from?
b) What percentage of the new housing will be taken by in-migration?
c) What analysis is there of what jobs people will do and how they will get to those jobs?
3. One of the justifications for Hereford becoming a Growth Point and the 18,100 new houses planned is the need for affordable homes in the county. The Critical Spending Review of 20 October 2010 outlined a number of changes that will affect affordable homes and council houses.
a) What effect do these changes have on the number of affordable homes in Herefordshire?
b) What effect do these changes have on the number of houses needed in 2026.
[see Council Meeting February 4th 2011 Qs 5 & 9 for answers to revised questions]
——————–
from Bob Widdowson
Could Herefordshire Council say how much the adoption of the Community Infrastructure Levy to pay for the relief road will add to the average cost of a home being built within this plan?
[see Council Meeting 19 November 2010 Q.7 for answer to question]
——————–
from Andy Simmonds
DEVELOPER OR OTHER FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED AS A RESULT OF HEREFORD’S URBAN EXPANSION
Herefordshire Council state the western bypass road will be funded by housing developers. Yet developers have to provide 35% affordable homes and a range of other infrastructure, including improvements to sewage works, water supply, schools, cycle ways and green space.
a) Can the Council explain how they will provide £109m for a bypass (or £90m if single carriage) and all the other necessary infrastructure from the proposed 5,300 new houses around Hereford, of which 35% must be ‘affordable’?
b) Can the Council provide a reference case for developer funded road building of this magnitude?
c) Can the Council show where else in the country a new trunk road bypass link has been instigated and paid for by a local highway authority reliant on developer funding? If so, were any of these roads that had been dropped from the National Roads Programme after failing at a Public Inquiry?
d) What other sources of funding for the road and other infrastructure are available to the Council?
e) How much infrastructure is to be funded through the Growth Point status agreement signed with Central Government in 2006 (please indicate amounts in £s per infrastructure heading)?
f) What conditions, if any, apply to funding through the Growth Point status?
g) What conditions, if any, apply to any new sources of Central Government funding for infrastructure, such as the New Homes Bonus?
[see Council Meeting 19 November 2010 Q.10 for answer to a single very much simplified question (a)]
HEREFORD CITY CENTRE
from Steve Horsfield
Page 10 of the Follow on consultation, Hereford City Centre Policy, has:
- the development of 800 highly energy efficient homes in a new Urban village to north of the city centre
Are we to infer that the development of homes which are not highly energy efficient is under contemplation? This is not something we would expect to see in a sustainable plan. Is there no expectation that all developments will be highly energy efficient and that e.g. all new properties will be designed with solar panels in their construction phase? Is this consistent with paragraph 5.9 on p37, “New homes will be required to address the needs of climate change and reduce the county’s carbon footprint.”
——————–
from Rebecca Roseff
REGARDING CONSULTATION, PUBLIC PREFERENCES, AND THE EDGAR STREET GRID
• Para 3.10 states: “Consultations have highlighted issues, opportunities and constraints affecting the city, which have informed the overall strategic growth policy for Hereford. Although 70% of those responding to the Place Shaping Paper questionnaire stated that they agreed with the preferred options set out for Hereford urban area, 12% of these said that they did not want to see the proposals having a detrimental impact on the city centre.” These statistics are surprising.
How many responses is 70% and what questions were asked?
The It’s Our City campaign had a 13,000 signature petition given to Herefordshire Council asking for a halt to the ESG retail centre and a re-assessment.
Was this petition taken into account in the LDF consultation process?
[see Council Meeting February 4th 2011 Q6 for answer to revised question]
• Para 3.16 states ESG will mean Herefordians will shop in Hereford which is more sustainable than them travelling to Worcester, Cheltenham, Bristol and Cardiff.
Where is the evidence to prove this?
• ESG literature claims the new ESG retail centre will draw on a population of 400,000. This means many people will have to travel into Hereford to make it viable (as the total population of the county is only 176,000). Many Herefordians travelling to Worcester, Bristol and Cardiff may do so by train.
Has this been taken into account when considering the sustainability of travel modes and ESG?
• Paragraph 3.36 states the retail study on-street surveys found that a fifth of people questioned wanted to see more non-food shopping. This actually seems very low. The evidence here is saying four fifths of people questioned weren’t bothered about more non food shopping provision and presumably were happy with the current city centre.
How has the 4/5th majority view been ignored?
HEREFORD MOVEMENT POLICY
VIABILITY (para 4.26)
from Anonymous
There is currently no prospect this year of a planning application for the Sustrans/Connect 2 River Wye crossing to the East of the city of Hereford, linking Tupsley and Rotherwas. Planning applications have however been submitted for a link road (with no bus lanes) and a large Plough Lane car park with 644 spaces.
After well over 2 years debate over a route, how much longer does this council think it will take before they can determine a route for a footpath and cycle way to cross the Rive Wye and improve the sustainable travel options for local residents and can they guarantee they will be able to complete this route before the funding is lost?
If the council are unable to build a simple cycle and footbridge for which they have funding, how are they going to deliver a single carriageway road crossing of the River Wye at one of the most difficult high level points, for which they have no funding currently available or are they more experienced working on car routes than sustainable modes of transport routes?
——————–
WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS TELLING US
from Steve Horsfield
P30 of the Follow on consultation, What the evidence is telling us, has: “the level of growth planned through the Core Strategy would need both a strong package of sustainable transport measures and also a new road infrastructure” (para 4.32) and “the scale of housing considered could not be accommodated by the existing highway network and a relief road would improve the situation” (para 4.31).
So we are building a road because the housing requires it, but we are also building the housing because we need it to finance the road. The consultation documents contain several references to planning gain, the expectation that the relief road and other infrastructure improvements such as schools will be financed by developer profits.
Given the, to many of us very welcome, current reductions in housing prices, which might possibly bring house purchases back within the scope of working people on Herefordshire salaries and wages, what is the provision for a scenario under which the consequently constrained profits of the developers, who are also faced with our heightened specifications and costs, are simply insufficient to fund that planning gain?
——————–
from Paige Mitchell
The Preferred Option Follow On consultation states (para 4.30) that the Delivering a Sustainable Transport Policy Study (2010) ‘concluded that the level of growth planned through the Core Strategy would need both a strong package of sustainable transport measures and also new road infrastructure.’
Does the ‘new road infrastructure’ the DaSTS concludes is needed mean that it concluded that ‘a relief road’ is needed?
Could the Council please cite (and preferably quote in full) the paragraph reference in the DaSTS where this conclusion concerning the need for new road infrastructure and specifically for a relief road is set out?
The Preferred Option Follow On consultation states (para 4.32) that ‘the modelling confirms the combined benefits of the relief road with a strong package of sustainable transport measures.’ However no evidence of the benefits of either the relief road or of the sustainable measures is presented in ‘what the evidence is telling us’. This seems a rather critical omission regarding key elements of the LDF upon which the Core Strategy depends.
Could the Council please provide paragraph references and summaries of the benefits confirmed by the modelling?
The Preferred Option Follow On consultation states (para 4.33) that Local Transport Plan 3 will improve traffic management ‘whilst promoting walking and cycling for the majority of trips’
What does ‘the evidence tell us’ about levels of walking and cycling in 2026 and the predicted effect of a relief road on both? Will walking and cycling account for the ‘majority of trips’?
If Local Transport Plan 3 were to be successful in ‘promoting walking and cycling for the majority of trips’, what impact would this have on the case for and eventual use of a relief road?
The Preferred Option Follow On consultation states (para 4.33) that meansures in Local Transport Plan 3 will ‘encourage modal shifts from private cars to public transport.’
What does ‘the evidence tell us’ about the predicted scale of the shift from private cars to public transport over the next 15 years?
The Preferred Option Follow On consultation summarises (para 4.33) a key comment from the Government Office for the West Midlands as follows: ‘If a Core Strategy policy/proposal is not deliverable because it is not economically viable it should not be in the Core Strategy’ and that the ‘DaSTs study is being carried out with the objective to provide specific affordable recommendations for transport intervention.’ Meanwhile it is clear from para 4.26 that the ‘work regarding viability [of an inner Western Route for the Hereford Relief Road] and housing phasing are ongoing and will be included within the submission of the Core Strategy.’
Doesn’t the non-availability of the ‘viability’ study indicate that it is premature to consult on the inclusion of a Relief Road in the Core Strategy?
What specific recommendations has the DaSTS study made on ‘affordable’ transport interventions? Please provide summaries and paragraph references.
The Council has emphasised throughout this consultation and wider communications its view that the spatial strategy and specifically the Hereford Urban Expansion are dependent a relief road (for example at paras 4.11 and 4.31).
How does the Council justify the dependence of the Local Development Framework Spatial Strategy on a housing growth distribution which itself is, in the Council’s view, so dependent on a single piece of infrastructure, the deliverability of which has not yet been shown to be viable?
How far does the Council consider the potential non-deliverability of a relief road would jeopardise the Local Development Framework?
What are the Council’s duties to the public and council tax payers of Herefordshire over the presentation and promotion of planning strategies and proposals that must be considered high risk if they cannot be shown to be otherwise?
NORTHERN URBAN EXPANSION
from Steve Horsfield
Page 49 of the Follow on consultation has
6.16 Consultations have also indicated that some provision to extend Aylestone Business and Enterprise College will be required, to increase its capacity from 750 students to 1,200. This would result in a growth in intake from 150 places to 240 places. Additional land may be required to achieve this and developer contributions will therefore be sought in respect of these future educational needs.
Irrespective of the merits of the proposal, is additional land genuinely requisite to achieve an intake capacity the school has exceeded in the last ten years?
