July 4^th was a red letter day for Stansted. The planning application by Taylor Wimpey for 140 (or more) homes adjacent to Bentfield Green was REFUSED by Uttlesford’s planning committee by seven votes to one.

The following is an expanded version of the article I have penned for August’s The Link magazine.

Never has there been such elation from a massive delegation of residents from Stansted who attended the planning meeting yesterday. Eleven of us spoke and appealed to the committee to refuse the application. The delegation of speakers against were three district councillors, one county councillor, four parish councillors, two other residents of Stansted and a professional planner representing the Save Stansted Village group.

It was an impressive display of unity because the speakers were supported by many other people from Stansted who helped to fill up the public gallery.

The committee had a recommendation from the council’s planning officers to APPROVE the application. The primary argument put forward by the planners was that the council does not have a proper plan in place and can’t demonstrate it has sufficient land planned for housing growth over the next five years; so, said the planners, under national planning guidance the application should be approved.

In many different ways all speakers said that this attitude was wrong; that it was flawed logic.

I made the point that sports facilities at the same location were rejected by a planning inspector at an appeal in 2009 because of damage to the Bentfield Green conservation area and the surrounding countryside; so how much worse damage would be caused by the same sports complex PLUS 140 (or more) houses. Nothing has changed since 2009 that warrants approval. (Only audience applause, after which the chairman banned applause!) My full speech can be read here: REPRESENTATION PLANNING APPLICATION UTT131203OP_issue 2

Cllr Joe Rich added that neighbouring estate roads could not cope and that a proposed primary school would never be built on the proposed developer’s land, which itself opened up the whole landscape to further development beyond 140 homes.

Cllr Iris Evans said that applications like this should not be given automatic approval under the National Planning Policy Framework; that the site had previously been judged unsuitable for development because it would damage the landscape; and the previous negative issues are still relevant.

Cllr Ray Gooding, wearing his county education hat, said the site and money offred for a new primary school were not enough to build a new school; that the county council has no spare cash and that Bentfield Primary would be damaged by a new school on its doorstep.

Cllr Nigel Collingwood quoted Magna Carter and the historical fact that Richard DeMonfichet, a signatory, had promised to “keep your word”, so Uttlesford DC should do the same and refuse the application, which was speculative and disproportionate.

Alan Storah, consultant for Save Stansted Village (SSV), said it isn’t sustainable development and that the negative impact would outweigh the benefits; that the 5-year land supply deficit is not the trump card and that officers should not be besotted by housing numbers only.

Cllr Catherine Dean said Bentfield Green is the worst possible place for development and that the officer report is ludicrous in ignoring the history of previously rejected applications there. The impact on Pennington Lane is unacceptable. If the committee had any doubts, refuse it!

Ray Woodcock, resident, referred to a petition, the absence of more capable health facilities and made the only party political points – echoing the views of neighbours – about district council prevarication over the local plan.

Gale Hogg, Bentfield Green resident, said approval would destroy Bentfield Green; that it shouldn’t be approved just because it is on offer; that first-come, first-served planning is not planning at all.

Cllr Valerie Trundle spoke about retaining arable land, the narrow roads, current school traffic congestion and blockage of the bus route; that a fair and responsible decision was needed – for refusal.

Cllr Geoffrey Sell summed up for the parish council. He said Communities minster Eric Pickles wanted to promote happiness and that this application did the opposite (only audience laughter). Bentfield Green is the Jewel in Stansted’s Crown. Development should be plan-led, not opportunistic. Taylor Wimpey’s communication has been limited, and they haven’t listened to local people.

All these representations against took about 1 hour and 10 minutes.

Representatives for Taylor Wimpey and Bidwells supported the application. They described the officer report as “dispassionate” and claimed that all the opponents’ objections had been overcome. They claimed that the officer report was the equivalent of an Environmental Impact Assessment, which had not been required (for some reason) by UDC. [Curious claim?] This site is good for development if the MGB to the south is to be avoided. Essex CC officers say the school site is good. [Contradicts the education portfolio holder!] They’d worked closely with planning officers. [Ergo it must be OK?] It’s in the public interest – more needed homes. Nothing affects the protected status of Pennington Lane. There have only been two recorded accidents on Hargrave Park – outside Bentfield School at pick-up and drop-off time for children? You can sort this my imposing parking restrictions near the school. (Another burst of laughter – but this time derisory.)

The grounds on which the application was refused were (i) maintenance of existing

development limits, (ii) protection of the countryside, (iii) protection of the conservation area and (iv) protection of agricultural land.

Refusal was supported strongly by councillors Janice Loughlin and Keith Mackman. Committee member comments can be summarised:

Cllr Doug Perry questioned Essex highways on traffic matters and wasn’t convinced by their claim that “refusal cannot be substantiated”. Will vote against.

Cllr Janice Loughlin said planning needs to have more local influence; the application is adversarial; it doesn’t meet policy S7 on protecting the countryside; nothing has changed since the last appeal was dismissed.

Cllr Keith Mackman (who proposed refusal) said it was contrary to planning policies S1, S7 and ENV1. The site is nowhere in the draft local plan.

Cllr Jan Menell backed my point that “nothing is safe” if the application were approved. She wanted to ask Cllr Gooding questions about the school but was not allowed to do so “because Cllr Gooding is not an officer of ECC”. [Curious?]

Cllr Vic Ranger said the site might well be screened by (recently planted) trees but it is still too intrusive on the countryside. Proposed that policy ENV5 (agricultural land) supported refusal.

Cllr Eric Hicks was the only supporter for approval. He said that Stansted should stop pretending that it is a village. It is now a town and should be willing to change like a town.

To repeat the result; Taylor Wimpey’s planning application at Bentfield Green was REFUSED by SEVEN VOTES TO ONE.

July 4^th was the day a battle was won. It is not the end of what many people have called the Siege of Stansted. At the end of July we will be fighting to keep Cambridge Road as an employment and service area by trying to stop yet another 14-home planning application on the former London & Stansted/You’re Furnished site. In September the Bloor Homes application at Walpole Farm will come before the planning committee. So, there will not be much relaxation this summer for the council, its councillors and the people of Stansted, I am afraid.

Cllr Alan Dean