Meeting to discuss proposal for 3000 houses between Elsenham and Henham

Elsenham Village Hall, September 28, 2007

Chairman: Raymond Franklin, vice-chair, Elsenham Parish Council

Panel: District Councillors Catherine Dean and David Morson

Many members of the public attended

Raymond Franklin: Welcomed attendees. Introduced Cllrs Dean and Morson. The two meetings (Henham and Elsenham) had two aims: acquaint public with all the facts and allow members of the public to air their views, comments and proposals.

David Morson: Gratified to see so many attendees. Had represented Henham since 1995, Cllr Dean had represented Elsenham since 1999 and both represented Henham and Elsenham since it became one ward in 2003, both committed to preserving rural nature of the area. Alongside airport expansion, issue of this development vital for the area. If not stopped, new settlement will be three times the size of Elsenham and Henham put together.

Appalled by the proposal, also appalled by process that introduced this option. Now seeking support to stop development and investigate the process behind the proposal.

Environment Committee decision to choose this development as their preferred option for housing development in Uttlesford taken on September 4. Councillors asked for special meeting of Area Panel, which was refused. A loophole in the regulations permitted five councillors to approve the special meeting, to be held on Tuesday, October 2 at Elsenham Village Hall.

Central government forced UDC to locate new homes in the district:

• 5000 already located
• 3000 needed, plus another 1000

• Would involve distributing development between the District’s three main settlements, Stansted, Dunmow and Saffron Walden
• Would involve distributing the development across a hierarchy of settlements: Great Dunmow, Saffron Walden, Newport, Stansted, Elsenham, Thaxted, Great Chesterford, and other smaller villages
• Similar to 2., but with 1440 houses in Elsenham

Half way through the meeting the leader of the Council proposed a new Option 4, placing 3000 houses between Elsenham and Henham. Option 4 was neither documented or on the agenda. All four options should have further investigation, but Option 4 was agreed as the committee’s preferred option on the Chairman’s casting vote.

The decision is totally flawed as the proposal was introduced, undocumented, part way through the meeting. If councillors are unhappy with a decision, it can be ‘called in’. Five councillors have petitioned the Scrutiny Committee which will now investigate to see if there was adequate preparation before the decision was made. The Scrutiny Committee will meet in Saffron Walden Council Office on October 3, people encouraged to attend and voice their objections. If decision not overturned, it will go forward for further consultation. There are three possible outcomes at the Scrutiny Committee:

• The decision will not be ‘called in’ – a member of the committee will propose ‘next business’
• Decision called in and reversed, after which the Environment Committee must revisit the decision within 12 days
• The decision could be investigated by full Council

Prior to the Environment Committee meeting officers only aware of three options, however Option 4 widely discussed in Tory group.

Can also investigate possibility of reporting to Local Authority Ombudsman. Last and worst option Judicial Review.

Decision will be scrutinised by East of England Assembly.

Suggested people should attend Area Panel on Tuesday (2nd) and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday (3rd). Petition available, on-line and on paper, to be sent to Cllr Ketteridge.

Raymond Franklin: Opened the meeting to the floor.

Unless otherwise stated, speakers are Elsenham residents

Alex Quigg: Must make clear also opposed to 1000+ house propositions, otherwise we agree to those by default.

David Morson: Agreed, two issues: Option 4 had no consultation, Option 3 has been consulted on and is therefore valid option. If Option 3 taken up, then able to lobby against. In Elsenham Village Plan, 87% of residents opposed further development. Why should council over-ride that? Government says there must be more housing, but council must take village views into account.

John Argent: Asked for explanation of Fairfield map showing ‘controlled land’ – does this mean developers can keep coming back.

David Morson: Four landowners have been approached, do not know if they have agreed to sell – many developers take out speculative options on land.

Carole Barbone, Stop Stansted Expansion: When we gave evidence at the Stansted Airport Enquiry, one developer pressing very hard for development in Elsenham.

Heather Salvidge: Any consultation been done on surface road access? (Laughter)

David Morson: Fairfield said surface access is OK. (Laughter)

Raymond Franklin: Planning Inspector at Leigh Drive enquiry said roads adequate, junctions not adequate. (Laughter)

Lyn Segar: That was 20 years ago. Elsenham Village Magazine shows all possibilities, Elsenham wasn’t consulted.

Alex Quigg: This is smokescreen for 750 or 1000 houses, must not fall into the trap.

Paul James: We’ve had enough of consultations.

Catherine Dean: Consultation on principle about where houses should go was in Uttlesford Life. Whatever happens, will be 6 week consultation. 1440 houses mentioned would be just start of new settlement, as would 3000. Officer at Environment Committee said various developers trying this area – when Stebbing development suggested many villagers objected, but that hadn’t been case with Elsenham.

Ray Woodcock, Stansted: When was Parish Council aware?

Raymond Franklin: At most recent Parish Council meeting.

Ray Woodcock: I was at Stansted Parish Council meeting on February 7 when issue of 3000 houses for Elsenham and Henham was raised.

Geoff Woolvin: Been monitoring East of England plan, all kinds of proposals, most never get beyond draft, nothing settled, currently 500 page plan with another 300 page government document. Won’t be firm until 2009. Wouldn’t know about this now if Fairfield Partnership hadn’t produced brochure.

Ray Woodcock: But Stansted Parish Council knew on February 7. Anything in Henham and Elsenham has impact on Stansted. If airport goes ahead, it will strengthen case for housing.

Frances Lambert: If Stansted knew, why Elsenham and Henham not told?

Raymond Franklin: Fairfield Homes document received by Parish Council July 7.

Petrina Lees: When Cllr Morson asks for lobbying, what kind: ‘we don’t want your houses’ or ‘your decision is wrong’.

David Morson: Two forums: Area Panel – ask what you like; Scrutiny Committee – lobby on the way decision was made.

Petrina Lees: The Council Leader introduced this without evidence.

John Segar: 1988 Tribunal Inspector did not say infrastructure was OK, said village could not take additional 300 cars. Mr Harborough (Head of Planning) said the detail will come later (Laughter) and Mr Ketteridge (Council Leader) wrote to me ‘Nothing is decided, all decisions open for public consultation’.

Nancy Scales: We are talking about roads, what about schools, doctors?

David Morson: Worry that number must rise to make ‘sustainable’ development before developers will provide more.

Peter Johnson: In the 1988 Crest Enquiry Report, Inspector said of schools that if new development, County Council has statutory obligation to provide, therefore schools not considered in planning enquiry.

Carole Barbone, Stop Stansted Expansion: Understand this might be a ‘sustainable’ community.

Mrs Cook: What about fire brigade, police, etc?

Park Road resident: Would they want to use field by motorway bridge for M11 slip?

David Morson: That seems to exist on Fairfield plans.

Avril Braywood: More effective if each person write, not just petitions.

Pam Merrifield, Stansted: Leaflet from Fairfield says ‘improvements to local highway’, what does this mean?

Catherine Dean: Council Officer says no more roads, more buses (Laughter). Letter from Fairfield does not mention roads but suggests ‘Orbital Bus Route’ using existing roads. New roads only if second runway approved – settlement only viable with airport expansion.

Mr Wooler: Commuter - trains already struggling, can’t cope now.

Michael Lamb, Henham: In 67 saw plans for second runway at Stansted. HGV route into Elsenham via Takeley or Thaxted, already 6’6” limit through Ugley and weight limit on Grove Hill, after second runway, only one way into village.

Geoff Hill: Confusing document from Highways – roads shown could service new development.

Geoff Woolvin: Got two year old map Fairfield submitted to East of England – settlement would have internal road system, breaking out into Henham Road.

Alan Hathaway: There is direct connection between airport and this – new road due to go through by golf club. Got to oppose both airport and this.

Colin Hart: Knew about this proposal from Little Hallingbury Area Panel – Roger Harborough (Head of Planning) said 10000 homes needed for sustainable community.

Lyn Segar: Used to be suggestion of new settlement on new A120 – this has disappeared.

David Morson: No plans to reinstate it. If this goes back to consultation, issue can be raised. Please mention all these things at area panel on Tuesday.

Colin Hart: Will this hall be big enough?

David Morson: We need to make a show, overspill outside shows depth of feeling.

David Newland: Front cover of magazine says meeting at 7.30, in fact at 7pm.

Andy Searles: Can’t cope with 41/2 thousand extra cars – already suffering airport parking.

Stewart Cooper, Henham: Why choose here?

David Morson: Easy option, M11, rail, maybe linked to airport. Put these points on Tuesday, attend Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday, need to show the feeling we have here tonight.

Petrina Lees: Write to Scrutiny Committee tonight questioning decision.

David Morson: Write to Councillor Ketteridge.

Peter Johnson: Will Councillor Ketteridge or Councillor Barker attend Area Panel.

David Morson: Barker on honeymoon, Ketteridge at Tory conference, don’t know.

Godfrey Hall: Will Parish Council move ahead – already lost six months since Stansted knew.

Catherine Dean: Officers have been working on this for months, produced three options. Fourth option only been concrete for two weeks.

Geoffrey Nicholson: Will Parish Council confer with Stansted Parish Council in future?

Raymond Franklin: Yes.

Councillor Alan Dean (from the floor): At no time in last two years has there been serious consideration of a new settlement. It was bottom of officers’ list as not investigated. Decision a disgrace, officers viewed it as non-starter.

Petrina Lees: There have been loads of ideas, but Parish Council cannot respond to vague ideas.

Jean Platt: Crest Homes attended Parish Council meeting, but Parish Council turned them down and have heard no further.

Colin Hart: People should attend Parish Council meetings.

Raymond Franklin: Please return all petitions to me, Monday latest. Thanks for attending.

Lillian Adams

September 29, 2007

NB: I may have mis-heard and/or mis-spelled peoples’ names – please feel free to correct, and accept my apologies