Future large scale planning applications
Looking backwards.

Crest Homes PLC applied for planning permission to build 350 homes on the land around the Playing Field north of Stansted Road and between the M11 motorway and Station Road. Permission was refused and Crest went to appeal procedure. After the 1988 Public Enquiry the refusal decision was upheld.

At that time the number of homes within the settlement of Elsenham was around 700 so that this development would have raised the total to 1050. The main reasons for refusal were use of village services and impact on the local highway network. In making his decision the judge paid special regard to the District Council’s policies with regard to providing housing to meet airport generated demand and whether there was a need to make further housing land available at that time.

Since then the number of homes in Elsenham has risen to over 1000 by way of smaller in-fill developments. The predicted impact on roads and services did happen. In making his decision the judge actually visited Grove Hill and Chapel Hill at various times of the day. He reported that the roads were in constant use at these times such that the proposed increases were undesirable in terms of increasing significantly the danger and congestion. We can now confirm that he was right because Grove Hill frequently backs up a long way at peak times and any attempt to solve this problem will simply move the jam to Chapel Hill etc.

Limitations in capacity at the village primary school were pointed out then and have since resulted in the recent building works.

The way this all happened was normal procedure in that the Parish Council opposed the plans and when passed up to the District Council they in turn opposed them, Crest then went to appeal. The situation now is different. One key issue had been that Uttlesford District Council had a plan for the area which did not require the development. Now we have the Government pushing for very large numbers of homes to be built and the District Council has decided that putting 3000 of them here is their preferred option. One by one all of the Judge’s reasons for upholding the refusal have gone away with the sole exception of westerly traffic congestion.

The moment the highways problem is solved we lose because we will be fighting Uttlesford as well this time.

In the short term the Government who previously built and improved roads as the need became apparent has publicly announced that in future roadworks will be demand led. So in order to attract any of the Highways budget we will need to actually be gridlocked rather than proving that we will soon be so.  This forecasts a very dire future but for one glimmer of hope. The East of England Regional Assembly has suspended their support of the Plan and await infrastructure funding commitments before it will support the Plan again. I am reading the term “infrastructure” to include adequate roads.

In opposing the Fairfield Partnership’s proposals in the absence of support from Uttlesford we may find an ally in the East of England Regional Assembly or at least enlist their help in developing our case, it will all come down to what they mean by “infrastructure”. Sadly in the meantime we have been advised that notwithstanding EERA’s stance the Government is pressing ahead with the East of England Plan and the reason we are identified as the preferred option is because the proposed site has so many advantages over the alternatives.