EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
by Alan Dean on 9 March, 2016
I was shocked yesterday to discover that Stansted’s new health centre building at Castle Maltings, Lower Street has been built to a different design from the one approved by Uttlesford’s planning committee.
Even more alarming, I’ve spend months trying without success to get answers about the constructed design vs the approved design out of the council’s planning department. It was not until yesterday that a private professional from the construction industry brought me plans showing the built design has departed significantly from what was approved.
The changes may turn out to have been driven by the need to build 14 luxury apartments on top of the health centre, dentist and a retail store.
Here are the key changes that I have discovered so far:
WHY HAVE YOU NOT BEEN TOLD?
I have to assume that’s because that there was a private agreement between the developer and Uttlesford District Council planners sometime last year that all these changes would be classified as “non-material“; that is, so small and insignificant that no one else such as nearby residents, nearby businesses, the parish council and district councillors needed to know.
I have persuaded officers to put the new – and already implemented – design before the planning committee in April. I have demanded that there should be a proper consultation first. The parish council today decided it will send UDC its views later this month whether the district council wants them or not.
This is an appalling situation. I visited Gill and John White this morning. They live in the shadow of this building. It looms above their home of many decades. They put new windows in their home some years ago. UDC insisted they install multi-light, Georgian style windows to conform with the conservation area. Why is this developer being let off the hook? His approved design also requires multi-light, Georgian style windows to conform with the conservation area.
Mr & Mrs White think it is one rule for the big boys and another rule for individual householders. It’s my job to ensure UDC is even-handed with everyone!
THESE ARE THE DEVELOPER’S DRAWINGS (which I saw for the first time yesterday)
[1] Here is the roof garden plan.
THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO.
If, like me, you don’t like what is being done, write to Uttlesford Planning at the Council Offices London Road Saffron Walden Essex CB11 4ER or emailed to planning@uttlesford.gov.uk. You can’t use the normal online system because UDC has NEVER been inviting comments on this application! Please copy emails to me at cllrdean@uttlesford.gov.uk. You can also add them as Comments to this blog post.
This is Uttlesford DC’s definition of a Non Material Amendment. What do you think? Do these changes fit this definition?
Tell UDC you want to comment on planning application UTT/16/0264/NMA, Castle Maltings Lower Street Stansted CM24 8LP, Non Material Amendment to UTT/1522/12/FUL – General plan revisions to reflect proposed retail units and general plan updates to health centre & flats. Amenity space and plant to roof. Minor elevation and window position to reflect changes. New balcony to flat 7 and additional windows to flats 12 & 13.
Thank you!
12 Comments
It seems simple to me. Planning approval was given on a specific set of plans. If this planning approval has not been adhered to, there is a legal case to compel the developers to undo all the aspects of the development which were not approved.
This building is a complete blot on the landscape, it dwarfs all other buildings in that part of the village. If the plans have not been adhered to there should legal action taken against the developer and he should be made to stick to the original plans. I wonder if the developer would like this on his doorstep, The probability is they do not even live in the village!
Having just been through the planning process to make a modest change to my house in Stansted I can only agree with the sentiments expressed. It is appalling that this development was approved in the first place and to find that such intrusive and significant changes to approved plans have just been waived through is shocking. There must be a legal challenge to this blatant flouting of planning rules.
Uttlesford’s Planning Department has a lot of explaining to do and clearly has allowed this development to go out of control. This is a clear breach of its terms of reference by ignoring the the conditions laid down by the Planning Committee.
How can we have confidence in a District Council which fails to apply safeguarding measures to prevent such abuse of the system when officers go against the wishes of those committed to protecting our community?
I have been saying for some time that the planning department that UDC is systemically corrupt but nobody listened.
At the election last May residents returned individuals like Hicks and Ranger despite their obvious contempt for local opinion. This was swiftly rewarded by forcing through a wholly unwanted planning application on Ongar Road that had been previously rejected on a number of occasions.
As to the Stansted health centre, locals can scream until they are sick but UDC will simply ignore them.
I am disinclined to sympathise with residents who were prepared to return a Tory majority at UDC despite the obvious shortcomings revealed over the previous 4 years, or did the failure of the draft local plan not register with anyone voting?
Come on Keith, get your campaigning gear on and persuade your friends to lambaste the Uttlesford cronies in support of the Lib Dem majority Parish Council. Let’s all get to it and make a stand.
I won’t get involved. 4 years of hard work on behalf of residents across the district was spat on last May.
Sorry to hear that Keith, it is a shame that ‘Free Speech’ is a luxury these days. The press organisations have ushered in a climate of ‘condemnation without the facts’. No one seems to care any more unless they win the lottery!
I was accosted by a gentleman who stated that it was “disgusting” that I had raised the issue of the developer of the new building taking advantage of the inaction of the UDC’s planning officers. It is ironic that this gentleman is a member of the Neighbourhood Planning group for the village.
Neighbourhood planning is about discriminating between what is good and what is not good. However, I know someone who has opposed every attempt over several years to achieve the best possible development at that site. He opposed demands for a pedestrian crossing in Lower Street and for increases in car park capacity, claiming the car park is and will remain large enough. The same person has supported all proposed and refused developments behind Tesco that will aggravate pedestrian and motorist safety on Cambridge Road through over-development.
It truly is a shambles. Planning applications and getting drawings passed by UDC has always been a long slog. Residents around the centre of the village have to adhere to strict regulations,regarding keeping there properties ‘ in keeping’ with the overall look of their surroundings. Poor John and Gill , have been completely overshadowed by the new building, with windows overlooking their beautifully keep property, and their privacy being completely intruded upon. The windows in the new health centre, simply, must be changed for the correct Georgian style.! We are currently looking to refurbish the tower and spire on Stansted Mountfitchet Social Club, I wonder if a nice metal and glass refurbishment will be accepted!!!
Well my message to Wayne and whoever in Stansted wants to do whatever they want to with their property is do what the BIG boys did –Put in your plans that suit–and then just do as you please, it obviously works! If you get the planners banging on your door, just send them up to the monstrosity at the cross roads with a list of their misdemeanors, that should get them off of your back!