Several weeks ago I made a written complaint to officers and the responsible cabinet member at Uttlesford Council about the highly unsatisfactory condition of the Lower Street public car park here in Stansted. The car park is owned by Uttlesford District Council. Yet the council has allowed the developer of the adjacent Castle Maltings health centre/supermarket/luxury apartments to have what seems like free reign to remodel the car park and to take some of the land for the development without payment.

The numbered paragraphs below are my questions and comments. The responses that I received follow in italics.

1. The car park has been partly resurfaced and partly patched up. Why has it not been wholly resurfaced? Have the joints where patches have been inserted been sealed with tar to prevent their deterioration from winter conditions?

The surface of the existing car park was generally in good condition and the revised layout did not justify complete resurfacing. The state of the base in the extension proved to be unsuitable for resurfacing and had to be completely rebuilt. Joints are not always sealed.

2. Double yellow lining has been applied on the southern side of the access road but obliterated from the northern side of the approach road. Is it intentional that parking on the northern side will both cause obstructions and provide free parking? Is it intentional that people are thus being encouraged to park outside residential properties free of charge, whereas the occupiers have been required to buy parking permits to park in the regulated area? Please see attached photograph IMG_5802 that show the obliterated road markings.

This was an error or misunderstanding on the developer’s contractor’s part. The intention is that there is no waiting on the access road to avoid obstruction to traffic leaving and entering the car park

3. There is a telegraph pole standing in the carriageway of the approach Road. See photograph IMG_5801. Surely this is irregular and a traffic hazard.

This is a problem that the developer has not resolved. The ownership of the land on which the poles stand is unknown as there is no registered title. BT do not know who owns the land. The contractor has proposed some crash barriers but the design is not satisfactory.

4. Has there been a safety audit on the proposed design and on the implemented design?

The design was checked by the council’s engineer. It is proposed to carry out a safety audit of the car park and access as built.

5. Previous road markings have been obliterated with black paint rather than having been burnt off. Is this not a short-term, cheap measure that will require rework when the paint wears off? See IMG_5802 and IMG_5816.

This method of blacking out linage is acceptable.

6. Who will pay for remedial work for all of the deficiencies that I have identified? I hope the taxpayer is not expected to have to pay.

The developer is responsible under the development agreement for the car park works and therefore any necessary works to achieve compliance with the approved drawings would be its responsibility.

7. Pedestrian crossings have been obliterated across the entrance to Castle Walk and to the entrance to Mountfitchet Castle. It seems that the proposed pedestrian way may be now be on the southern side of the road including the building undercroft. However, any marked walkway peters out beyond the building and is marked only with white or yellow lines either side but no hatching or other marking to segregate it from cars. See IMG_5805 and IMG_5806. This presents a safety hazard for all pedestrians, especially young people using the skateboard facility. Previously there was a clearly demarcated pathway.

Pedestrian crossings were removed because of the new layout. The one shown in the picture had been redundant for some time.

8. The section leased from UDC by the landlord for tenants of the new apartments is marked “RESIDENT PARKING” at the entrance. This could easily be misinterpreted as for residents of Stansted. It is currently being used by all classes of car park user.

The signage was meant to be agreed with the council by the developer but the contractor pressed ahead without that agreement being sought as its completion deadline approached. All the signage in the car park needs to be reviewed.

9. The section leased from UDC by the landlord for the NHS is marked by a sign at the entrance to the section as shown in IMG_5818 as “NHS…..surgery permit holders only”. This sign is repeated at the line of parking spaces against the railway boundary. See IMG_5830. However, this sign is immediately adjacent to a sign saying “Patient Use Only”. This contradiction is causing confusion to members of the public.

The signage in this leased area was decided by the GP practice. The developer is responsible for the management of this area. The signage requires review, as the GP practice has now requested that NEPP enforces the restrictions operating in this leased area. The signage will need to be clear if NEPP is to do so effectively.

10. Between the NHS section and the residents’ section is what looks like a sleeping policeman designed to slow down traffic. See IMG_5809. It is a square, solid kerb some 12cm high. I was in the car park on Sunday morning when a van drove in to the NHS section and proceeded to the residents’ section. There was a loud grinding sound as the vehicle crashed over the kerb. I have hear that last week more than one car damaged its underside when the same event occurred. I expect that the council (or maybe its lessee) will receive claims for damages.

The contractor has been asked to position two signs in the centre of the raised kerbs to make them more obvious. The signs will show the start of the NHS section of the car park. (I understand that subsequently, the developer has been asked to remove the obstruction.)

11. The proposed long-stay section of the car park has few users as most season ticket holders are using the short-stay or leased sections. However, this section includes a makeshift cycling ramp for young people!

The revised Car Park Order when implemented will only allow long stay use in the section of the car park beyond the skate park. This will enable the first pay and display section of the car park for the intended short stay use. The developer’s contractor has been instructed to remove their debris from the car park. The contractor has given assurances that building materials would be removed as soon as possible.

12. Along the boundary with land sold to Mountfitchet Castle is signage “CASTLEPARKING”. Why is it now so marked?

In the light of local concerns about the adequacy of capacity in the car park as extended to the east, the castle parking may provide useful additional spaces for visitors to the attraction, albeit at some risk of loss of car park charge revenue to UDC.

13. A payment machine (or some other device) has been erected on the boundary between UDC land and Mountfitchet Castle land. Is this council equipment? If so, what is it and why is it placed on or across the boundary of two ownerships? If it is not UDC equipment, what is it and why is it there?

This is a UDC ticket machine, although it is not currently working. NEPP is arranging noticeboards and tariff displays. A review of the location is required.

14. The car park notice with fees in the short-stay section is marked “Long Stay”. See IMG_5836. Why is this so?

The noticeboards do not appear to have been changed. The car park was originally long stay throughout. New noticeboards are required once the revised Car Parking Order has been agreed and NEPP are working on this.

15. There is no finger or other direction signage whatsoever to direct potential parkers to their appropriate section of the car park in what is now a very complicated and confusing semi-public car park. When will appropriate signage be erected? Will it be installed by UDC or the developer of the health centre?

Signage has been erected by the NHS and the developer’s contractor will be erecting signage for the residential section. The adequacy of signage was discussed at a site meeting held on 21 November.

 16. On a slightly different tack, the council has ceded land to the developer for the installation of an electricity sub-station, with the loss of several parking spaces. Was this arrangement subject to an agreement and a payment to the council at a commercial rate?

It is not known why the developer commissioned a sub station from UK Power Networks on land it did not control. When this came to light, the council had the land required by UKPN valued, but was advised that as the spaces were being re-provided in the eastern extension, there was no value to the substation site, and it was transferred for nil consideration.

Needless to say, I am not satisfied with these responses and am continuing to pursue corrective action.