EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
Cllr Alan Dean
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
A DISHONEST COUNCIL IN DECLINE, A CHINK OF COMPASSION TINGED WITH AUTHORITARIAN RULE (PART I OF III)
AIRPORT PLANNING DEBACLE CONTINUED - WITH £££££ STILL TO PAY
EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
A DISHONEST COUNCIL IN DECLINE, A CHINK OF COMPASSION TINGED WITH AUTHORITARIAN RULE (PART I OF III)
AIRPORT PLANNING DEBACLE CONTINUED - WITH £££££ STILL TO PAY
Castle Maltings Update – WRONG WINDOWS APPROVED!
by Alan Dean on 17 March, 2016
Since I wrote six days ago there is a little more clarity about the construction of this building and its departure from the approved design, but more information is still to come to light.
- It seems that the installation of plain windows throughout the building without the approved Georgian styling has come about because the NHS said it needed windows on the medical floor that were easy to keep clean. I have asked why sealed window units with internal bars to create the appearance of small panes were not used.
- The word has got out that the installed windows have already been approved by UDC. An hour ago I wrote “That is not true”. Sadly, I would have been wrong. I have since been told that planning officers have already approved what they think are the right windows but I and many others think are the wrong windows. I have just been told that nothing can now be done to force a change.
Plain, non-Georgian windows have been approved by UDC planning officers. The builder couldn’t even place them centrally in the archways.
- I have been told that the developer has chosen to use the non-material amendments application procedure. This does not mean that council officers necessarily agree that this is the most appropriate approach.
- There are several potential outcomes from such an application. These are: (i) approval of the application on the basis that the effects of the changes are not significant in the context of what was approved; (ii) refusal of the application on the grounds that the effects are significant; or (iii) a split decision identifying which changes are not significant and others which are not appropriate for approval under this procedure.
- If any changes are not approved as non material amendments, the applicant would then be able to make a full planning application for the scheme as built. That would involve a full evaluation of the development against the council’s development planning policies, the need for the development and its effects in the round on the locality.
- It has been decided to refer the application (except the windows) to the Planning Committee for determination due to the public interest and nature of the representations received. This may be on April 5th, though I am hearing that it may have to wait until May 10th to ensure all facts are available for the report to be put before committee members.
- Officers are currently considering whether it would be helpful to arrange a site visit for the committee members for them to be able to assess, for example, the degree of overlooking from the roof gardens and the impact of the large aircon. etc. plant enclosure on the roof. I would be surprised if there is not a site visit.
- Despite the council not yet having invited public comments on the changes, I know that a lot of residents have submitted objections (and maybe supporting comments). These will be published on the council’s website, though until Friday (18th) this is undergoing maintenance.
I am really sorry about the way this has been handled to date. The design of the building on the edge of the conservation area has been undermined by these inadequate windows. The public’s respect for the principle of conservation areas is at risk. I am not surprised that Stansted residents think it is one set of rules based on impunity for the big boys and another set of rules for the ordinary citizen based on respect for authority.
16 Comments
Have you spoken to the Conservation Officer (Barbara Bosworth) about this ?
I have been told that it is Barbara Bosworth, the conservation officer, who put forward the approval of the Windows. I am more than Disappointed.
Window structure is one thing which is a disgrace, but to have the Windows off set from a centre position is totally unacceptable and without any excuse, simply bad workmanship and lack of supervision. Surely this must have been noticed during constructions?
If these windows remain, they will have a problem selling the apartments. 14 luxury apartments, I don’t think so – not with those windows.
The shortcomings of officers with relation to planning generally, conservation matters and effective control of developers should have become clear to residents some time back.
How could competent officers have allowed the council to put the previous draft local plan before the inspector? How can an officer directly involved in a substantial planning application be allowed to leave the council and work for the developer of that specific application?
How could UDC decline to defend the Kier appeal (on spurious and irrelevant legal ‘advice’) when the outcome clearly demonstrated that a properly advised district council would have fulfilled their duty rather than abandoning it to the town council and residents.
It remains to be seen whether the new chief executive will clean out the Augean stables bequeathed to her by the last incumbent and the Tory rabble. Putting a fire hose through the planning department would be a good start, along with dismissing the current management team but I doubt that this will happen.
I think the style of the windows is totally unacceptable with this building being on the edge of a conservation area and to think that they will soon be marketing the apartments as ‘luxury’ apartments is a joke as no one is going to pay the premium price with windows like that installed !
I understand that the owner is on his second marketing agent http://m.tuckergardner.com/Buy/Castle-Maltings-Stansted-Mountfitchet-Essex after the first did not deliver purchasers.
It has been suggested to me by someone I respect that my acerbic comments about the electorate do me no favours.
Well, since 4 years striving to defend residents across the district was rewarded with rejection at the first reelection opportunity I fail to see what I might gain from disguising my contempt for ungrateful, uninformed and thoughtless residents who lacked the wit to distinguish between national issues when voting for Sir Alan as against local issues when preferring pond life such as they preferred.
You get what you vote for, live with it. Pardon me for considering your choices inappropriate if not actually insane.
You sound like someone who thinks they are entitled to power and is extremely bitter than an election didn’t go your way. That’s life. That’s politics. Grow up and deal with it. In the mean time, as a community we’ll deal with this egregious breach of the planning requirements on this development without you having to deign us with your help.
If you think being a councillor involves power then you are totally ignorant of local politics. As a community, you will get what you voted for, so suck it up and don’t imagine that attempting to patronise me will accomplish anything beyond revealing your imperfect command of the English language.
Thank you for your response. From your tone, I now understand why you lost your seat.
You didn’t stand where I live and your political group did not put up a candidate here. Why have you got it in for Stansted residents?
You understand SFA about me and your comment only serves to illuminate your ignorance. As to ‘having it in’ for Stansted residents, perhaps you should do some research before opening your trap. I actually fought an appeal on the Cambridge Road site (successfully) but apparently that passed you by. As to the current situation at the health centre site, I am not a councillor, I don’t live in Stansted, why should I give a damn?
Dear Mr Dean,
Is there an issue with the height of the building? Has this been approved and if not what measures can be taken to mitigate the situation?
Thank you.
Dear Johnny, There is an issue with the height of the building. I am waiting for a full analysis of what has been built compared with what was approved. It seems that the structure will be some 2.5 metres higher than what was understood at the time of approval and that the extra height is the result of servicing structures placed on the roof that the developer wants to surround with a large, walled compound. Until council officers produce a report for the planning committee, which may meet on April 5th, we will not know the full story. I complained yesterday to the council’s new chief executive that the changes seem to have been known to the developer for over 12 months but have only just come to light.
Thank you for your response.
The confusion seems to be about authorisation and, in this case, it appears the developers may have got approval from officers, perhaps without them indicating anything to the planning committee. I find it hard to believe a developer would create significant risk to themselves and their reputation just to put in an air conditioning unit – it could happen, of course, but it’s rare. So, it possibly comes down to an issue of governance rather than the intent of the developer.
I think governance is an apposite word, but so is transparency. Thanks for your comments.