Ahead of Essex County Councillor Tom Cunningham’s attendance at the Full Council meeting on Wednesday, the Councillor was sent a list of questions regarding the state of roads and road infrastructure in the village. At our Full Council meeting on November 13, Cllr Cunningham provided answers and promised to update the community where he was unable to do so by the end of November.
You can read the questions and topics SMPC and residents have raised.
At the start of January, Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council received an update on the topics and raised at the meeting in November 13, Cllr Cunningham as well as from Essex County Councillor for Stansted & Birchanger Ray Gooding.
SMPC questions with answers from the Essex Cllr
1 Grove Hill
You have already received a copy of the Parish Council’s position paper relating to the significant issues on Grove Hill – particularly its use by large and heavy vehicles. We look forward to receiving your responses to the questions in the document.
Councillor Cunningham visited the site with a chief engineer and after seeing the situation he sympathises with residents. He will seek to meet with MAG with a view of looking at diverting HGVs along a route which is partly owned by the airport.
Essex Highways: Further discussions are being had with officers on Grove Hill still and we will update you further on that.
Cllr Ray Gooding: Given the request to approach Manchester Airport Group regarding the use of their roads as an alternative I have asked Officers to investigate to provision. However, the initial feedback is that because MAG are the owners of the roads and they are also a Highways Authority, they are unlikely to approve such use.
2 Church Road
The traffic calming scheme on this road is not fit for purpose and should be removed. The build-outs were constructed without gaps for cyclists or adequate drainage and act as a collection point for both debris and water. Sections of Church Road have flooded for years and whilst we understand that “there is a plan” to undertake investigations or repairs, we would like to know the extent of the scheme and a timeline for its implementation. Pedestrians using this route are regularly soaked from passing traffic hitting the flooded areas.
The Parish Council considers the traffic calming scheme to be dangerous. The last-minute switch of one buildout to the opposite side of the road was a poor judgement and has resulted in cars speeding through this section and, in a number of cases, overtaking waiting traffic to do so. There have also been collisions with motorists turning right as they come uphill whether these have been reported to the Police or not. Our Ward Member has requested that the buildouts be removed and we support his request. We believe that there are other, more effective measures that could be implemented, such as speed cushions. We have previously been told that these cannot be installed on bus routes or in residential areas – there are similar schemes elsewhere in Essex so this information must be incorrect.
Essex Highways: The Church Road scheme was implemented using S106 funds at least 10 years ago now. At the time it was agreed with the Parish Council, but I think that they are correct that there were some late design changes. The Design team in Essex Highways carried out the design and had oversight of the works that would have followed design standards and road safety audit. Ultimately the objective was to manage traffic, particularly speeds along Church Road. If any further information is required, the scheme would need to be checked with the design team in Essex Highways but I do not think this will achieve anything at this stage and given the time that has elapsed. Removal of the scheme and replacement would be for consideration by the LHP in the first instance. It is possible that there may be some S106 funding remaining for Stansted Mountfitchet, but my understanding is that the scheme below will utilise all of the remaining funds.
The footway alongside Church Road – the main walking route to our only secondary school – is very narrow in parts. We understand that there is a scheme in train to acquire some land from the adjacent landowner to widen the path and have requested sight of the design from your S.106 Officer as the funding was given under a legal agreement associated with the development of Foresthall Park.
Essex Highways: There is a scheme to widen this section of footway using the remainder of a significant S106 contribution. I believe its on the Essex Highways delivery programme.
Essex County Cllr Ray Gooding advised that he has made an application to have the chicanes removed and replaced with another scheme which will have to be looked into. He does not think that speed pads would be a suitable option. He has asked for a new review through the LHP and a design to be drawn up.
3 Flooding – Gall End, Lower Street
The Environment Agency has confirmed Essex CC’s riparian responsibility for maintenance of the area in front of the Lower Street Culvert Trash Screen. This maintenance is never undertaken by ECC. Since the flooding of this area of the village in 2014, clearance work to remove the build-up of debris being washed down the Ugley Brook has been undertaken by a group of volunteer Flood Wardens with equipment provided by the Parish Council. If ECC will not undertake the maintenance themselves, will you give SMPC the funding to carry out essential clearance there and implement measures to allow our Flood Group volunteers to work in safety?
Essex Highways: To clarify, the highways maintenance team recognises its responsibility to keep the trash screen at the entrance of Lower Street clear—specifically, the area at the road’s edge under the railings and within the bed. Previously, this area was regularly cleared by the Rangers crew from Uttlesford District Council/ECC, but since the Rangers service was decommissioned, that maintenance has unfortunately ceased. We are now working to incorporate trash screen maintenance at this location into our highways maintenance plan.
The Parish Council installed the newer trash screens along Gall End Lane, and while it may have been assumed that we would maintain them, these screens are located away from the junction in a private ditch. The highways records department has confirmed that this ditch is outside of the highway boundary and falls under riparian/landowner responsibility.
We have a history of maintaining the original trash screen at the culvert on Lower Street and will continue to do so. However, we cannot assume responsibility for maintaining the new trash screens further along Gall End Lane.
Cllr Ray Gooding: Following my telephone conversation with John O’Brien I have requested that a contribution be made by ECC towards the maintenance – I await an answer. I can confirm that I have been unable to establish the correct contact within the Environment Agency.
Essex County Council is responsible for some but not all of it. Councillor Cunningham will arrange a meeting with the Environment Agency. Cllr Caton requested that the Parish Council be involved in the meeting and the office will let him know who should be included.
4 B1383 Cambridge Road
This main north/south route through Stansted (the diversion route when M11 is blocked) carries a high volume of traffic and is said to be at, or very close to, full capacity. What strategic plans do you have to cope with further increases in traffic volumes in the coming years?
In addition, with further development (250 homes) due at Walpole Meadows in the coming years, the footway from there up into the top of the village requires upgrading with the addition of street lighting. Currently it is dark, narrow with a drop on one side and muddy. The speed limit should be reduced to 30mph rather than the 40mph in place now (although 50mph roundels are painted on the road).
Essex Highways: At a strategic level Essex County Council have been progressing Local Transport Plan 4 and the initial stages of this have been out to consultation this Autumn. Uttlesford District Council have consulted on their Regulation 19 Local Plan which includes proposed allocations for development at Stansted Mountfitchet. Essex County Council have made comments on these proposals. Initially it will be for the UDC Local Plan to identify infrastructure requirements to accompany planned growth as part of the evidence base prepared to support the Local Plan.
Cllr Cunningham will take this away. He advised that any weighted evidence that residents might have to support their argument would be useful. The need for street lighting in that area was also discussed and SMPC Cllr Jones advised that ECC need to put pressure on to get this done early in the development of Walpole Meadows 2.
5 High Lane
This road serves as the pedestrian link between Walpole Meadows and the lower part of the village (shops, services, train station) but is unsafe. There are regular incidents of speeding traffic which can be evidenced by SpeedWatch data. As part of a recent planning application, a developer was to provide additional footway connections, together with crossings, to improve the situation, but has now submitted revised plans to which we have objected. If the revised plans are approved, will Essex Highways look to implement similar road safety measures/traffic calming/zebra crossings? Further development along this road will follow as another site has been included in the Uttlesford District Council Reg 19 draft Local Plan.
Cllr Cunningham will discuss the revised Troy Homes application with Highways. It was made very clear that we need them to support the Parish Council in having the original scheme.
Highways: Like point No 4 above, Uttlesford District Council have consulted on their regulation 19 Local Plan which includes proposed allocations for development at Stansted Mountfitchet, and Essex County Council have made comments on these proposals. Initially it will be for the UDC Local Plan to identify infrastructure requirements to accompany planned growth as part of the evidence base prepared to support the Local Plan.
Unfortunately, no planning application is referred to for the recent planning application and I will investigate further. In general terms the developer is responsible for mitigating the impact of their development, they are not however responsible for pre-existing issues. But where issues may be further exacerbated by additional development, ECC would of course consider this as part of any mitigation.
6 Planning Applications
This item relates to Point No. 1 above but also more widely. There has been a string of major planning applications, particularly in our neighbouring parish of Elsenham, where your officers have made no comments. We believe that this has been instrumental in adding to the difficulties on Grove Hill. It seems strange that you would ignore the impact of additional traffic onto the local highway network, especially when you are fully aware of the existing problems.
Essex Highways: ECC are well aware of the difficulties on Grove Hill and are actively working with a developer to implement an improvement scheme that was a requirement of development. In recent years there have been several planning applications that ECC has objected to on highway grounds, but in drawing a planning balance the Planning Inspectorate did not agree with our position. No specific planning applications are referenced so I am unable to comment further but Stansted Parish Council must rest assured that Grove Hill is considered in connection with development proposals that would generate significant vehicle movements
Councillor Cunningham cannot give reasons for previous applications but has listened to the strength of views and will give assurance that they will take this away and look at future applications more strategically.
7 Regular Highway Maintenance
- a) How much money has been spent on maintenance in Stansted Mountfitchet in the last 5 years?
Essex Highways: I’ve received confirmation that this data is not available at the level requested - b) How much of Essex Highways’ budget has been spent on capital projects in Stansted Mountfitchet in the last 5 years? (projects not funded by S106 schemes)
Essex Highways: As above - c) What capital projects are planned for the village in the next 5 years?
Essex Highways: This information is available here: https://www.essexhighways.org/highways-information-map
Councillor Cunningham does not have these details as they do not record at this level per parish and work on need rather than each parish. He will look at, and inform us of, major schemes carried out in Stansted.
8. Old Bell Close
I can confirm that I visited Old Bell Close with a representative from Highways on 20th December last. It was observed that the five surface gulleys adjacent to the property in question were all clear and running freely. However, as has previously been stated these gulleys are all located at the bottom of the road and surface water in peak rain conditions is bound, given the topography of the location, to collect in this area. It is evident that in these conditions there will be a build up of surface water but there is no evidence that this is not draining away. There was evidence of some ponding in one area where the road surface had been previously repaired and it was agreed that Essex Highways would return in spring/early summer to carry out a more extensive surface works with the intention of removing the ponding.
This was explained to the resident in full but it was also confirmed that the overall issue of excess rainwater collecting in this position, given the layout and gradient of the roads, would not be possible to remove – Essex Highways
Questions from residents & answers from Cllr Cunningham
A Would you please clarify position of unadopted roads. According to the Essex Highways’ website the roads are now called private streets. I would like to know the status of these as regards parking. Are residents who live on these private streets allowed to stop other people parking and then impose huge fines by using parking enforcement companies? Wondered about the legality of all this as there are public rights to use the roads.
Essex Highways:
- Parking issues can be discussed with the relevant parking partnership.
- Post: North Essex Parking Partnership, PO Box 5575, Town Hall, Colchester, CO1 9LT
- parking@colchester.gov.uk
- Telephone: 01206 282316
Councillor Cunningham will obtain the legal definition from the legal team and send to the Parish Council.
B Re Highways and infrastructure: is there any imminent plan to repaint road markings in lower Stansted? I have seen more than one near miss at the mini roundabout and bottom of Grove Hill, where the road markings are barely visible.
Essex Highways: If you could log the exact locations and concerns on the Report it Tool we can assign an inspector to assess and identify any necessary actions.
Having witnessed it himself on the way to the meeting, Councillor Cunningham completely agrees and will take this away.
C Any chance that the state of the roads particularly Silver Street/Cambridge Road/Bentfield Road and Grove Hill can be addressed as a matter of urgency?
Essex Highways: Inspections will be undertaken to determine any repairs required, in accordance with the Maintenance Strategy
Councillor Cunningham will check where this is on the priority list and let us know.
D In Spanish towns, there are usually speed controlled traffic lights. Everyone approaching in excess of the speed limit causes the lights to turn red and bring the car to a stop. This massively slows the traffic to the legal speed. Sometimes Silver Street is like a drag strip.
Essex Highways: This facility is not permitted/approved for use on UK roads. In addition, if a signalised pedestrian crossing were to be configured/set up to change to the pedestrian stage (red to traffic) when no pedestrians are waiting to cross, this is likely to lead to non-compliance by drivers as they become used to there being no pedestrians on the crossing and therefore do not stop, which is likely to lead to pedestrian/vehicle collisions
Councillor Cunningham does not have the answer to this.