People in Stansted are determined that Uttlesford District Council will not inflict bad planning on the village. Two-hundred and ten people said as much in this letter I received over the Bank Holiday Weekend. They are correct. Good development is welcome. Bad development is unwelcome. The latest proposal is over-development and is bad!

There have been five (5) planning applications and one planning appeal at 14 Cambridge Road, Stansted CM24 8BZ since January 2012. Three applications were refused and the appeal was dismissed. One application in December 2012 to demolish all existing buildings went through, resulting in the site being levelled to earth level and all previous activity on the site extinguished well over two years ago.

This has been a saga of greedy land owners and developers wanting to maximise their exploitation of the site by paying little regard to the local community and businesses that will have to live with the unacceptable consequences of their plans. The latest applicant has not even bothered to conduct any local consultation.

There is no doubt in my mind that Uttlesford’s planning committee should reject the latest application UTT/15/1666/FUL for the following reasons:

1. The site would be over-developed if approved; the houses and the commercial buildings are together too big and would not function properly;
2. Parking is under-provided by around 15 spaces, or around 50%, and includes impractical tandem parking. This would put an intolerable burden on the public’s nearby Crafton Green Car Park and on parking demand in Cambridge Road;
3. The entrance to the site and exit from it into Cambridge Road is too narrow with poor sight lines; there would be a dangerous conflict with pedestrians and with passing vehicles and with parked lorries outside Tesco and with buses at the stop immediately outside the site;
4. The site has no existing use. This was mostly ceased several years ago and was totally extinguished through demolition nearly three years ago; there is no practical basis for claiming that this latest proposal is no worse than what exists and has permission; nothing exists and nothing has permission!
5. There are flaws and inaccuracies in the applicants description of his proposal;
6. The applicant seems to think he has addressed weaknesses in the last scheme dismissed at appeal; but this is a different and denser development that must be made to stand or fail on its own merits and should not be approved based on shaky claims that some features are better than the Planning Inspector previously rejected;
7. The applicant has carried out no public consultation and has minimal community support for his application.

A transport assessment has been carried out on behalf of local residents and business people. The report and an addendum can be read at these links.