Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
by Alan Dean on 18 November, 2013
Will Stansted residents every see their promised new health centre in Lower Street? The centre has had planning permission for over 13 months, but not a brick has yet been laid. Recent conversations I have held within and outside the NHS suggest cautious optimism; though it has to be said that has been the case for the past several years.
After numerous phone calls I have now spoken to Dr Susan Humphrey at the Stansted surgery, Alison Manton at the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group, Anna Mitchell as the Essex office of NHS England, Peter Hilton of Hilton Properties Ltd. and John Stirling of AC Wealth Management. My current understanding of the situation is as follows:
A Little Recent History
I started my latest quest for evidence of action at the end of October when I read a press claim from Newport that some people thought they have been hoodwinked by developer Pelham Structures, also the long-standing promoter of the Stansted health centre. The article which caught my attention was on the front page of the Walden Local of October 30th. I posted this on my blog. The following week the paper printed a rebuttal from Mr Bill Bampton of Pelham Structures. I also received a threatening email from Mr Bampton for making “totally unfounded” suggestions about the delays to the Stansted project. I took down my earlier blog post pending further investigations of the situation.
In my earlier blog posting I questioned whether we might expect the Lower Street health centre to metamorphose into additional apartments if the commercial deal was not concluded. Such has been my scepticism and that of many of my constituents.
Mr Bampton was quoted as a project spokesperson in an article in the Dunmow & Stansted Observer of November 7th shown below, placing the blame for the delay on the NHS. “…..getting them to move quickly is just not possible”, but adding “we are still optimistic”.
I then heard from Mr John Stirling of a financial services company in Saffron Walden, which is advising Hilton Properties, the owners of the Lower Street site. Mr Stirling told me “I can confirm that Bill Bampton of Pelham Structures was involved….. until the grant of planning” but since October 2012 has no “contractual right or obligation to remain involved in the scheme”. I was confused by this but I also apologise for connecting him with the current delays with the Stansted project.
Mr Stirling added: “I can also say that your (blog) site is in my list of ‘must read’ sites now, and I look forward to a suitably inflammatory follow up to the article that you sadly felt it necessary to withdraw. Of course I cannot promise never to be upset by anything you write, but I do fully support your right, or indeed obligation, to make noise and generate heat in order to bring light to a situation”.
I am pleased there is now a glimmer of light shining on and reflecting from the project. I will continue to generate heat (in an attempt to keep the light glowing) until the new health centre become operational!
3 Comments
Well, we have heard all this before. So, more wait and see. Chose will rain on Stansted with developments in Elsenham, and Stansted! And tho I do hope not! Hellsenham:-/can you imagine the roads ?!
Well, after being quoted so thoroughly (and correctly, although perhaps with some lack of context – but I would say that!) I really ought to respond. A must read indeed. We are pushing very hard – the NHS are moving forward, slowly, although when public money is involved one must necessarily expect a very high level of diligence, and this takes time. It is frustrating for everyone, residents, councillors, and developers. There is a will on all sides to deliver this scheme, but a process must be followed.
One minor correction – the parking conversation is open and current (your point 7).
I must also clarify that Pelham structures have no contractual right or obligation in respect of developing the scheme or agreeing the medical centre – as the designer of the scheme they do have rights regarding protecting their investment in obtaining planning on the scheme. I believe these are largely or completely discharged – but I wouldn’t argue if Bill asserted rights over the scheme design as not fully discharged at this precise point in time.
I guess the difference of emphasis over the car park is that my focus has been about the capacity of the car park to cope with future demand and not due diligence over income and expenditure of public money. I am advised that there has been no recent revision to the proposed layout.