JOINT PARISH COUNCILS STEERING GROUP
Fairfield Application for 350 houses on land to the North West Of Henham Road.UTT/17/3573/OP
Fairfield has again applied for planning permission for 350 houses on land adjacent to B1051. This application first started in 2007 and has been refused by a Planning Inspector twice and indeed by the Secretary of State himself. The surrounding Parish Councils remain completely opposed to this development. We have told Uttlesford District Council (UDC) for over 10 years that this is a completely unsuitable site for a development of this size.
Wearing though it may be, it is vital all residents object again to this application. Each and every resident living in the area who opposes this development should make their comments, quoting the above number, to UDC (1) either in writing to UDC, Council Offices, London Rd, Saffron Walden Essex CB114ER, or (2) by e mail to email@example.com with your name and address or (3) at UDC website http://publicaccess.uttlesford.gov.uk where you can comment on this application. Points of Objection, deadline 13th February 2108. Please use this list as suggestions for objecting. It is important you don’t just cut and paste but use your own language and your own views on why this application is flawed and should be refused. A copy of this letter can be found at SaveOurVillages.com.
Points for Residents
Serious objections raised by the Appeal and Local Plan Inspectors resulted in rejection twice in the last three years of development of the area, which includes the current application site. Elsenham and the sites are not sustainable locations for new development. Access is a particular problem because ‘the village lies at some distance from the strategic network in a location embedded within a network of rural roads’.
Development in this area would ‘cause harm to both the landscape and to views across it’ and be contrary to Local Plan Policy S7.
New Local Plan
UDC is working hard to produce a new Local Plan and the Draft published in July 2017 rejected any development on the site, despite representations by Fairfield, by not allocating the site for development. Adequate allocations were indicated which will meet the District’s housing needs.
Since the beginning of the new Plan period in April 2011 to March 2017 in Elsenham some 600 dwellings have already been permitted, of which some 170 have been completed. 73 dwellings have already been permitted in Henham. The new Local Plan, understandably, seeks more sustainable allocations elsewhere to meet housing needs.
Highways and access
Previous proposals have been rejected on many highway and access issues which have not been adequately addressed in the new application. Also, the development must be considered as part of the cumulative new developments of hundreds of homes at Elsenham and Henham.
The access strategy relies on the wholly unsatisfactory route through Stansted and or the use of the private roads through Stansted Airport. Should the airport choose to ban non-airport traffic the access strategy is likely to fail since significantly more traffic will go through Stansted Mountiftchet or the Four Ashes junction at Takeley that is already working at or above capacity.
Access still involves Hall Road (which includes a sharp bend) and the development which is inadequate, including a narrow carriageway and blind bends.
The proposals will add to the lack of capacity of M11 J8. There is still no proposal or even an adopted study to improve J8.
Traffic impacts on Stansted Mountfitchet is still a serious concern, also the probable rat-running along New Road through Ugley Green, and along Tye Green Road, to avoid delays in Stansted Mountfitchet. Residents have recent direct experience of significant queues and congestion in Stansted Mountfitchet. Traffic heading north would face Toot Toot Bridge and the very narrow North Hall Road.
Save our Village