Long-awaited technical reports on Uttlesford District Council’s development plans (the “Local Development Framework”) have been emerging in November. These reports indicate that the Conservative plan for a new town at Elsenham would be badly located. Of all the locations that have been put forward by landowners for a new settlement, Great Chesterford has been given the most favourable score in the transport assessment report. Traffic from an Elsenham new town would have to be directed via Takeley with some road improvements.   

Some of the reports are still only in draft form but will be taken into account on Tuesday 24^th November at 7.30 p.m. at the council’s environment committee. Some of the papers can be found here: http://ggpweb.uttlesford.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Meeting.aspx?meetingID=9020 The reports, called background studies, that have been published can be found on Uttlesford District Council’s website at: http://www.uttlesford.gov.uk/main.cfm?Type=PLCSD&MenuId=583 Reports that are not available there can be requested from Melanie Jones in Uttlesford’s planning department (email: mjones@uttlesford.gov.uk ). 

This meeting will be asked to approve another public consultation starting in January. In January the public and other interested parties are likely be asked whether the council’s preferred Option 4 for 3000-home new town at Elsenham plus a further 1000 or so homes spread around other town and villages is the right approach in the light of the new evidence. The Conservative-led Council is not currently planning to consult local residents about other options for spreading the housing across the district, but this will be another opportunity for the public to say that new towns are not wanted and that dispersal to most towns and villages is preferable. The last time the Council consulted local residents, a new settlement (Option 4) came bottom of the poll. 

In the transport report, roads in and out of the Elsenham are described as poor and unacceptable. The route through Stansted Mountfitchet is described as narrow and already congested. The report does say there is one solution to a new town at Elsenham; link it to a new road network needed for a second runway at the airport! However, as the likelihood of a second runway is now being downgraded, the only alternative is to encourage road traffic to go via Takeley and the Four Ashes traffic lights. This route would have to be improved, but would not avoid a big increase in traffic through Takeley and is a cause of much consternation in that part of the district.   

It remains to be seen whether a majority of Uttlesford councillors takes note of this technical advice and eventually changes Uttlesford District Council’s preferred future housing option to either a concentrated new settlement at, say, Great Chesterford or  a dispersal strategy across the district’s towns and villages. There will not be an early decision on this.

It seems that January’s consultation has to happen before the proposals can be reconsidered, so blight and uncertainty will hang over parts of our district for many more months to come. Uttlesford District Council made a decision in September 2007 to go for the Elsenham new town without any robust evidence to justify it. It has lumbered itself with that much derided ‘solution’ until it can either prove that it is a credible way forward (which is looking increasingly unlikely) – or until it can come up with a more acceptable solution and demonstrate (with evidence) that it has at last done a proper job of planning for the future. If the Council doesn’t act in a professional way by following the proper planning procedures, it risks being taken to court by one or more aggrieved prospective developer and/or having its core strategy thrown out by a planning inspector after an examination in public.

Another report commissioned by the Council confirms that the number of homes allocated through the regional process to Uttlesford is about right to meet future housing needs. This conclusion knocks on the head the argument from the Council’s Conservative leadership that these houses are unwanted and unneeded.    There is also a report on land availability. This lists lots of small to medium sized sites around the district’s towns and villages, but also contains a growing list of big sites for new settlements which have emerged since the ruling Conservative councillors signalled in 2007 their willingness to contemplate alternative settlements when they chose the Elsenham new town as the Council’s preferred option. So there are enough sites for a dispersed solution, but not enough work has yet been done to produce a workable scheme. Most time and energy has been spent in the past two years on new settlements and eco-towns.    Residents may well wonder why on earth Uttlesford District Council is consulting for a second time on what seems the same, flawed housing option. It is at last following due process based on evidence about housing need, transport, water and sewerage – evidence that it and the public should have had before Elsenham new town was chosen.