The Uttlesford "Core Strategy" document has been published.

 

 

DEVELOPING UTTLESFORD
Consultation runs from Monday 15th February to Friday 9th April.

By February 12th you should have received from UDC a document headed DEVELOPING UTTLESFORD – YOUR DISTRICT - YOUR CHOICE
This document consults Uttlesford residents on the proposed sites for 4,000 new houses.  The Uttlesford District Council’s (UDC) preferred option is to place 3,000 of these houses on one site.  Two of the six sites included in the consultation are on the Stebbing/Saling border adjacent to Stebbing Green.  This is obviously of great concern to Stebbing Parish Council and we have prepared some notes which we feel might help you comment on some of the issues involved. 

There are seven questions in the Consultation document you will receive.  We will try to deal with the issues involved in each of these.  We strongly urge you to respond to this document since the strength of feeling in the village needs to be communicated to UDC.  Obviously residents in all the other affected villages will also be encouraged by their Parish Councils to make their representations known.  Nobody wants this housing on their doorstep but most of this housing is going to be built on green fields. 

As you will see below, the real threat if UDC’s preferred Option 4 is selected, is that in the event of the Elsenham site (3000 houses) not being chosen then the focus for the 3000 houses site could well turn to Stebbing, i.e. Boxted Wood/ Andrewsfield. This would be in spite of our many reasons (as set out below in our commentary under Question 2) as to why these sites are clearly unsustainable and unsuitable for such development.  Therefore we strongly urge everyone to respond to this consultation.

Please read the document first.  If you require any other details your District Councillor and the Parish Council are arranging meetings where the detailed documents summarised in the Consultation leaflet will be available and they will try and answer any questions you may have.  

Dates for these meetings are 20th and 27th February in the Village Hall Pelham Room, Mill Lane from 10am to 2pm.  Uttlesford District Council is arranging a special Forum meeting at the Helena Romanes School on 2nd March at 7.30pm (see local press for confirmation of date). The website will be www.uttlesford.gov.uk/corestrategy

COMMENTS
Option 1. To have most of the housing divided between the main centres of Saffron Walden (1,600) Great Dunmow (2,130) and Stansted Mountfitchet (470).  One of the main criticisms of this is that it does not allow for affordable houses in the smaller villages. 

Option 2. Great Dunmow (1,000), Saffron Walden (1200), Stansted Mountfitchet (30), Takeley (750) Newport (200) Elsenham (750) Great Chesterford (80, Thaxted (60) and 130 spread among the other villages.

Option 3. Great Dunmow (1000), Saffron Walden (1200), Stansted Mountfitchet (30), Takeley (60), Newport (200), Elsenham (1,440), Great Chesterford (80), Thaxted (60) and 130 spread among the other villages.

Option 4.  Elsenham (3000), larger towns (750), development in the villages (250) (See Housing Section of leaflet for more detail)

When the Parish Council first responded to the original consultation in 2007 its Preferred Option was Option 1 because all the main infrastructure already exists in terms of roads, surgeries, shops, schools.  However, Uttlesford shows no sign of moving away from Option 4 (i.e. 3,000 houses on one site) as its preferred option.  The Parish Council feels that if Option 4 is to be the preference then the houses must be sited in a locality which has access to all main transport links, a railway station is vital if any development is to be truly sustainable. 

 

COMMENTS
Q.2.1   If Elsenham is found not to be a suitable site then under Option 4 (3000 homes on one site) the two sites in Stebbing, along with the other 3 at Great Chesterford, Chelmer Mead (Little Dunmow) and Easton Park will come under consideration. 

The Boxted Wood proposal is for 4,500 homes, 3000 of which fall within the Uttlesford boundary and 1500 fall within Braintree. 

The Andrewsfield proposal is for around 3,000 homes.

Reasons why the Boxted Wood site is not a sustainable site for development:
(To a greater or lesser degree comments relating to Boxted Wood are also relevant to the Andrewsfield site).

The Government rejected this site in the first round when it was considering its Eco town proposals stating that “The location is remote”.  There are no railways stations locally.  Braintree Station is a branch line in the middle of the town and totally inaccessible from a commuter point of view. It has only 28 car parking spaces!  Chelmsford main line railway station is 17 miles, Bishops Stortford 14 miles and Witham 14.   4,500 houses would generate at least 9,000 cars.  This means that almost all journeys to and from this development would be by car.
Health provision would fall between several Health Care Trusts and would involve travelling many miles to access hospital care. It must be doubted whether there is sufficient capacity locally to cope with such large numbers.
Employment:   It is difficult to imagine at this stage what sort of employment would be available locally to accommodate such a large population.  This would be another “Commuter Town” which contradicts Government guidelines.
Uttlesford has found it difficult to encourage job creation in the District. Evidence shows that because of the rural nature of the area the district loses large companies who tend to seek sites outside the district where they can expand more economically.  Rural transport tends not to fit in with employer’s needs and this would result in more car journeys. 
Development on this site would encourage “rat runs” to major shopping centres.  The A120 already badly bottlenecks at Braintree and the M11 roundabout will eventually have to cope with the extra traffic generated by the thousands of houses already given permission but not built at Woodlands Park, Oakwood Park, Priors Green and Dunmow town centre. 

Shopping Facilities – It is suggested that for food and non-food shopping Braintree is the centre that people would use.  Braintree has a very small town centre with limited choice and, for non-food shopping particularly; people prefer large centres further afield. 

Due to the flatness of the site any development in this area would be unduly prominent in the landscape. The area is strictly rural with no houses on the site at all. It is a calm and tranquil scene, with beautiful views for walker’s cyclists and runners. Even driving by the visual impact is felt.

Consideration should also be given to the impact of urban development on the diminishing of dark sky areas particularly in respect of badgers and other nocturnal animals and the impact of continually forcing wildlife out of its natural habitats

Development would result in coalescence between Stebbing and Saling.  It will also decrease the open space between Great Dunmow and Braintree. People who live in villages have a very strong sense of place and of belonging to small supportive communities. Stebbing feels very much part of Uttlesford – this would be diminished.

Stebbing is a village with a strong social community.  Researchers have shown this community spirit to be fragile but vital to village sustainability.  One also needs to consider the implications of development that would link two districts with very different identities.

 

Consideration should be given to the impact on the nearby listed buildings particularly on Stebbing Green and throughout Stebbing Village. Stebbing has many historic buildings within its conservation area.  Uttlesford is giving consideration to creating a new conservation area at Stebbing Green.

The eventual proposed size of these developments would have the affect of joining Stebbing in Uttlesford to Saling and Rayne in Braintree.  They are Greenfield sites and would involve the destruction of picturesque and fertile farmland. 

Andrewsfield site is not sustainable: In relation to accessibility Braintree is the nearest centre.  It is felt that this is a poor location for a new settlement in this open area remote from existing settlements and the services they could offer.  There would be a severe impact on the open countryside.  The nearest railway links are even further away than Boxted Wood – see above.

Q.2.2. Almost all of the development so far has been in the South of the district at Woodlands Park in Dunmow, Oakwood Park in Little Dunmow, Priors Green in Takeley and at Birchanger/Stansted (Rochford Nursery). Since affordable housing is only gained by building market housing it is vital that the North of the district takes its share so that affordable houses can be provided in the whole of Uttlesford. The numbers for the larger villages seem appropriate.
Q.2.3. Stebbing is a small village (approximately 600 houses) and it is considered that the allocation of 6 houses is appropriate and could be more readily absorbed into the village community.
In summary we feel that housing in large numbers needs to be located near existing urban centres with existing infrastructure and services and, most importantly, a rail service. 

 

COMMENTS
The use of employment land for housing is acceptable providing alternative provision is made for new businesses.  Mixed development of housing and employment should only be entertained where there is assurance that noise and pollution would not be an issue.  It could be difficult to provide substantial employment facilities on a large development of 4,200 houses with these restrictions.

COMMENTS
In principle the criteria as suggested seems sound but the sites should not be close to existing residential development.

We know of no sites which would be suitable.

 

COMMENTS
In the consultation UDC says that whilst Scenario 1 (growth held at existing level of around 20 million passengers pa) would be the best option, the airport already has permission for 35 million passengers per annum (Scenario 2).  This is, therefore,  a more realistic scenario on which to plan the housing growth.
UDC has repeatedly given its reasons for opposition to Scenario 3 (Second runway proposals).  If you wish opposition to the second runway could also be stated here.

COMMENTS
UDC has very little green belt land – This should be protected at all costs. 

COMMENTS
Somewhere like the former Elsenham jam factory, which was an established employment site, seemed to work quite well and has encouraged business to expand, but it is felt that much consideration should be given to new Greenfield sites and only as a last resort should Greenfield land be allocated.

Stebbing Parish Council has tried to focus on the issues to assist residents to answer the seven questions contained within the Consultation.  Please take advantage of the two open days in the Pelham Room, Village Hall, Mill Lane on Saturdays 20th and 27th February between 10am and 2pm if you would like to discuss the issues further and/or look at the more detailed documents that will be available. 

We would again strongly urge everyone to respond to this consultation –

For info on how to respond cut and past this link into your browser http://consultation.limehouse.co.uk/uttlesford/drafts/23/index.html