Response by Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council to the Regulation 19 consultation on Uttlesford District Council’s draft Local Plan
1 Consultation has been absent or misleading in the preparation of this draft.
- SMPC proposed removing developing land east of High Lane and replacing this site with a similar size development on Church Road which was more sustainable along with more community benefits. No response was received from any member of the Local Plan Panel, while the lead officer in a meeting with us said that there would be no change on the proposal for the land East of High Lane. Consequently, the Church Road development was not pursued even though it had been raised by UDC with the Parish Council. Subsequently, in the Regulation 19 draft, the number of dwellings was reduced from 140 to 55. Had this been raised in consultation then the outturn on the Church Road site might have been different to the benefit of UDC and SMPC. How did we come to be misled?
- The proposal to consider closing High Lane as a through route was new and was never made known to enable consultation to take place either with SMPC or, according to County Councillor Ray Gooding, with Essex Highways.
This is not acceptable as the knock-on impacts are significant if this proposal is pursued. The volume of traffic along Cambridge Road (B1383) and using Chapel Hill will show a significant increase. This impact will increase the problems already evident on Chapel Hill and add to the back up of traffic at the junction with, and along, Lower Street.
2 The construction of new developments in Stansted Mountfitchet (425 dwellings plus 30 on High Lane already granted planning permission) and Elsenham (110 dwellings added in this draft plan) will increase traffic volumes using Grove Hill and Lower Street. Both of these roads are already under severe pressure notably from the cumulative effect of planning approvals for 1954 dwellings in Elsenham and Essex Highways has now dropped its long-standing proposal to remove HGVs using the lower part of Stansted Mountfitchet as a through route. As before, the inadequate road infrastructure is being ignored. UDC’s transport study highlights the issues with a prediction of gridlock within 10 years. No surprise to parishioners who see the impaction now on access roads and main roads. What discussions have been held with Essex Highways?
3 There is great emphasis laid on active travel including public transport. Currently, there is no bus service which connects Walpole Meadows, existing or proposed, or the land East of High Lane to the services in Lower Street or Station Road (including the health centre and pharmacy and the train station). Without regular bus services being introduced, it cannot be said that these developments meet the requirement of sustainable public transport. In terms of the Cambridge Road services this is served by an hourly bus (301). Unless this frequency is increased, or a regular service by the 7/7a introduced, the use of buses is unlikely to increase. The bus service into the village needs to service the train station to meet the need, as per UDC policy, to provide joined up public transport.
4 Pennington Lane is identified as part of the active travel route to Cambridge Road shops and services and Bentfield Primary School, while there is footpath access from the Lane to the proposed country park. SMPC feels strongly that Pennington Lane from Rainsford Road to the junction with the B1383 should be closed to vehicles other than for access. Bloor Homes and Essex Highways both supported this proposal at the unsuccessful appeal on the Pennington Lane development in 2021.
There is survey evidence to support the value of Pennington Lane as a leisure route while it is not, in any case, a particularly good or necessary route for traffic. It would also benefit the existing Walpole Meadows development.
5 Two sites have been allocated on Walpole Meadows as proposed for community facilities. The first is for educational need – a 56 place early years and childcare facility and the second for unspecified community use. It is worth noting that the existing Walpole Meadows development has a site reserved for educational use but remains unused while there is no community provision.
SMPC has two reservations on the proposals in UDC’s draft plan. First, the land allocated appears to need significant work because of the gradient before it could be usable and this should be made good at the time of the development. Second, without a substantial financial commitment, it is unlikely that a community facility will happen. Taking into account the two Walpole Meadows developments, land east of High Lane, King Charles Drive and the High Lane developments already approved, there will be around 540 dwellings with no community facility. This is hardly good planning.
6 The Local Plan should support the re-provision of a sustainable site for a small number of Almshouses could be allocated. This site should be allocated in a development supported in UDC’s Local Plan which points to the development on High Lane.
Prepared by Parish Councillors Maureen Caton and Peter Jones – 24th September 2024