Neighbourhood Development Plan

In 2021 June the Parish Council sent an 8-page brochure to all households in the village, Neighbourhood Development Plan – Plan the Future of Your Community. Its distribution kicks-off three months of community consultation.

The purpose of which is to hear residents’ views on 12 key topics that are at the heart of the Neighbourhood Development Plan that is a key part of planning for the village’s future. The topics are listed below:

  • Sport
  • Historic Environment
  • Air Pollution
  • A Green Environment
  • Flood Risk Management
  • Health & Wellbeing
  • Community & Leisure
  • Business & the Local Economy
  • Roads & Transport
  • Education
  • Design of New Development
  • Housing & Development

Here you find the various chapters of our emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan. Residents are able to participate in the consultation to do with the Plan by emailing their comments to the Parish Council at parishcouncil@stansted.net, by writing to our Offices at the Mountfitchet Exchange, or by simply commenting under one of the Council’s posts related to the Consultation on our Facebook page – stansted.parishcouncil.

Below you will find background documents relating to each of the key topics that should be read to help you arrive at an informed decision.

Sports

Sport and recreation is the foundation for sound mental and physical well being for children and adults. But some parts of Stansted have the highest rates of child poverty in Uttlesford, while obesity rates in some reception classes is 18%. Opportunities to play sport are at times lacking for both the young and the old.

But where should community efforts at improving the recreational environment best be focused? More football grass pitches or an artificial one? A swimming pool or an expansion of our two tennis courts? The options are laid out in the document below. Feedback your opinions to us on Facebook, email or by letter.

Cycle Lanes and Stansted

Historic Environment

This part of the Neighbourhood Development Plan, chapter 8, focuses on how best to conserve and enhance the historic environment, built character and setting of the Parish.

Our village has more than 140 listed buildings, three protected lanes, and three designated conservation areas — From Lower Street to Silver Street, Bentfield Green, and Bentfield Causeway.

Should Lower Street Conservation Area be extended, as proposed by the Council? And do the Sworders Auction Rooms, the St Teresa of Lisieux and Mountfitchet Exchange deserve listing status? These are some of the issues raised in the document below.

Resources:

Listed Heritage Buildings in Stansted

Air Pollution

The prevalence of heavy goods vehicles passing through our narrow streets when combined with all too frequent road works has led to the deterioration of air quality in Stansted. But how can we reduce air pollution? What places should be monitored to ensure it does improve, and would residents be prepared to cut back on car use to achieve this goal?

Flood Risk Management

This part of the Neighbourhood Development Plan focuses on how to prevent or, at least minimise, flood events in Lower Street, how to avoid new developments increasing the flood risk, and how to ensure clearance and maintenance of roadside gullies thus reducing risk of flooding.

Please find the Flood Risk Management chapter here:

Health & Wellbeing

How should the Neighbourhood Development Plan be shaped to take account rising demand for health services in the community? The elderly population in the village is set to rise from 18.9% to 26.5% by 2035, while the construction of homes in the area will mean Stansted’s single GP surgery will need to expand its resources to meet the needs of a growing population. Do we need a second pharmacy and where should it be sited? Such issues are discussed in fuller detail in the Chapter Health & Welfare below:

Community & Leisure

Housing development will see 1,500 extra residents in the village. Against this backdrop where offers the best central location to provide community services? And how can the needs of Foresthall Park residents best be met? Young people, meanwhile, require more and better opportunities for social interaction. But again, where and how?  These are the issues at the heart of the chapter on Community & Leisure.

Business & the Local Economy

Compared to many places of a similar size, Stansted Mountfitchet has sustained a healthy commercial infrastructure. But how has the pandemic affected the local economy and have employment opportunities been affected? And is cheaper parking the best way to support our shops, bars and restaurants?

A Green Environment

The village is blessed with natural assets like the Aubrey Buxton Nature reserve, but how should the Neighbourhood Plan ensure the natural environment and out-of-door activities are not only protected, but enhanced and improved. Green corridors need expanding and extra sites for tree planting need to be identified if a deficit of legally accessible open space is to be overcome.

Roads & Mobility

Too many oversized vehicles on too narrow streets, an absence of cycle lanes, and the small matter of the B1383 – one of the most stressed highways in the county. But what are the solutions? The introduction perhaps, of one-way systems and the pedestrianisation of streets? Or are better cycling routes and public transport the answer?

Education

By many standards Stansted has a good level of education provision but there are gaps. There is a definite shortage of pre-school places in the village. Can a new site be found on Foresthall Park or does expanding the existing Rainbow pre-school make more sense? Would the creation of a sixth form at Forest Hall school mean students no longer need to travel to Birchanger, Newport or even Cambridge for educational opportunities? And would a large housing development in the area require the expansion of primary school provision?

Development

Since the early 1970s when the first housing estates were built in Stansted, our population has grown from 4,664 to an estimated 9,600 in 2021. It looks like it is set expand further in the coming years.

Developers and landowners have suggested 21 sites for our area under last year’s Uttlesford District Council’s Call for Sites initiative. We still do not know how many, if any, will come our way. But it is likely our village will be expected to plan for more housing and business parks over the the timeline of Uttlesford’s still emerging Local Plan. The plan will map out development across the district until 2040.

The growth of Stansted poses some fundamental questions which you, by engaging in our consultation, can help answer. For example, should we now consider ourselves a village or a town? If we are to accept future development, where should new construction go? And on what terms should we permit construction in and around our village?

CALL FOR SITES: AREAS OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Last year in response to Uttlesford District Council’s Call for Sites initiative, more than 20 sites were proposed by landowners and developers for possible residential or business development in and around Stansted. The Parish Council’s initial stance is to back 8 of these potential projects.

Below you will find are outlines for the Parish Council’s position on each proposed site, but we are keen to hear from residents their views on these possible developments.

Leave a comment under any of our posts on our Facebook page or why not email us your thoughts at parishcouncil@stansted.net

For a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind our support for the various scheme, consult the document Development above.

SITE NO: 006

WHERE: Land Adjacent to M11 Business Park

SIZE: 0.49 hectares

Council’s stance: to Support

NOTES: In favour of development for light industrial use, contingent on scheme being an extension of existing M11 Business Link & no new site access onto Forest Hall Road

Map identifying site 006 of UDC Call for Sites 2021

SITE NO: 015

WHERE: Walpole Meadows North

SIZE: 23 hectares

Council’s stance: to Support

NOTES: In favour as could offer community & sporting facilities, & meet housing needs. Concerns include coalescence with Ugly, & extra traffic to village roads

Map identifying site 015 of UDC Call for Sites 2021

SITE NO: 013

WHERE: Land East of High Lane

SIZE: 8.98 hectares, 66 dwellings

Council’s stance: to Support

NOTES: In favour of a low density development only, & would need to offer community benefits e.g. footway/cycle lane to Aubrey Buxton Nature Reserve

Map identifying site 013 of UDC Call for Sites 2021

SITE NO: 023

WHERE: Land East of High Lane

SIZE: 3.45 hectares, 5 dwellings

Council’s stance: to Support

NOTES: In favour of a small number of houses close to the roadside, as the proposals appears to be sustainable in terms of access to shops and services

Map identifying site 023 of UDC Call for Sites 2021

SITE NO: 018

WHERE: Elm’s Farm

SIZE: 135 Dwellings, 8.81 hectares

Council’s stance: to Support

NOTES: In favour due to possible benefits of land for almshouses, extra allotments, land to extend the cemetery, with possible cycle lane and improved pedestrian footpath

Map identifying site 018 of UDC Call for Sites 2021

SITE NO: 019

WHERE: Stansted Youth Centre

SIZE: 0.18 hectares

Council’s stance: to support

NOTES: Conditional on County Council re-siting the Youth Centre & Spangles Children’s Centre to suitable locations in the village

Map identifying site 019 of UDC Call for Sites 2021

SITE NO: 025

WHERE: Stansted Northside

SIZE: 103 hectares, commercial development

Council’s stance: to support

NOTES: Contingent on community gains of sports provision (esp football pitches), improved cycle lanes to the airport and to Bishop’s Stortford

Map identifying site 025 of UDC Call for Sites 2021

SITE NO: 007

WHERE: Land south of Also Business Park

SIZE: 0.55 hectares

Council’s stance: to support

NOTES:Concerns over harm to landscape & to its visual as a visual amenity, given the size of the business park’s proposed expansion

Map identifying site 007 of UDC Call for Sites 2021

CALL FOR SITES: AREAS OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPOSED BY THE PARISH COUNCIL

Below you will find are outlines for the Parish Council’s position to oppose the proposed developments as put forward by landowners and developers in response to Uttlesford’s Call for Sites.

Leave a comment under any of our posts on our Facebook page or why not email us your thoughts at parishcouncil@stansted.net

For a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind our support for the various scheme, consult the document Development above.

SITE NO: 003

WHERE: Bollington Hall Farm

SIZE: 323 hectares, 5,812 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: the site would create a development as big as Stansted overburdening our existing road network and infrastructure; its size would bring coalescence with Ugley & Quendon, plus the proposal contravenes several sections of Local Plan Policy

The Parish Site is opposed to potential development Site Number 003 at Bollington Hall Farm

SITE NO: 004

WHERE: Birchanger – land between Stansted, Birchanger & M11 J8

SIZE: 222 hectares, 3,500 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: Site would be in Metropolitan Green Belt, risks coalescence with Bishop’s Stortford, negative impact on road network, among other concerns

Site Number 004, Birchanger

SITE NO: 001 (Elsenham)

WHERE: Land at Tye Green, Elsenham

SIZE: 180 hectares, 500 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: Risk of coalescence with Elsenham, contravenes several sections of Local Plan Policy and would impact on Stansted’s traffic infrastructure

The Parish Site is opposed to potential development Site Number 001 at Tye Green / Elsenham

SITE NO: 010

WHERE: Land South of Bentifield Causeway

SIZE: 5.96 hectares, 130 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: Site sits in Metropolitan Green Belt, threatens a valued landscape, transport issues (capacity / safety); numerous breaches of Local Plan Policy

The Parish Site is opposed to potential development Site Number 010 South Bentfield Causeway

SITE NO: 011

WHERE: Land West of Pennington Lane

SIZE: 9.12 hectares, 168 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: site of previous (failed) planning appeals; harms to a valued landscape; negative road & traffic impacts; breaches of Local Plan Policy

The Parish Site is opposed to potential development Site Number 011 West Pennington Lane

SITE NO: 012

WHERE: Land West of Pennington Lane

SIZE: 52.84 hectares, 334 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: site of previous (failed) planning appeals; harms to a valued landscape; negative road & traffic impacts; breaches of Local Plan Policy

The Parish Site is opposed to potential development Site Number 012 West Pennington Lane

SITE NO: 009

WHERE: Land West of Stansted

SIZE: 39.50 hectares, 870 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: harms to a valued landscape (Limekiln Lane); negative road & traffic impacts; numerous breaches of Local Plan Policy

The Parish Council is opposed to potential development Site Number 009 Land West of Stansted

SITE NO: 008

WHERE: Stansted, Land off B1051

SIZE: 0.43 hectares, 20 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: Could open the door to other developments that may would threaten coalescence with Elsenham; poor pedestrian links; & could affect Stansted traffic

The Parish Council is opposed to potential development Site Number 008, Land off B1051

SITE NO: 008

WHERE: Stansted, Land off B1051

SIZE: 0.43 hectares, 20 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: Beyond Village Development Limit, Unsustainable in terms of access to shops and services in Stansted, sited within the poor Air Quality Zone of M11

The Parish Council is opposed to potential development Site Number 008, Land off B1051

SITE NO: 016

WHERE: Stansted, Eastfield Stables

SIZE: 3.3 hectares, 99 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: Outside village development limit, inadequate pedestrian links, & lacks street-lighting

The Parish Council is opposed to potential development Site Number 016, Eastfield Stables

SITE NO: 001

WHERE: Stansted, Alsa Lodge

SIZE: 5 hectares, 100 dwellings

Council’s stance: to oppose

NOTES: Presents an incursion into countryside, unsustainable in terms of proximity to local services, coalescence risk with Ugley

The Council’s position is to oppose Site Number 001, Alsa Lodge