Alan Dean

Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North and Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more

View more tweets

Read more on this

View more tweets

Read more on this

Residents for Uttlesford Party backed Fairfield against Villagers

by Alan Dean on 14 February, 2017

The Residents for Uttlesford Party (R4U)  backed Hellsenham developer Fairfield against the people of Elsenham and Henham.

Fairfield’s spokesman wrote a letter in the Saffron Walden Reporter promoting Hellsenham New Town. The R4U Party said: “Fairfield seems to have a better grasp of public opinion”. Public opinion where? In Saffron Walden, where most R4U people live?

See what the R4U/WeAreResidents website said at the time about the Saffron Walden Reporter letter from Fairfield. [EDITOR’S NOTE (14.04.17): The R4U website link has mysteriously become broken. Is this opportunistic party now wanting to bury its past statements as it attempts to pretend in different parts of the district that they will defend everywhere against change? See what their website said in the next paragraph. I have also added their last (2013) County Council election leaflet that supported Hellsenham.)

WeAreResidents.org opinion: Fairfield seems to have a better grasp of public opinion and UDC’s own evidence than UDC do themselves. UDC’s evidence states that a new settlement is the best and most sustainable solution for the district. In the December 2011 SHHLA, sites at Stumps Cross and near Elsenham came up as the locations preferred by UDC for a new town. A new town allows provision of all new infrastructure, and so overstretches existing communities much less. [Edited change to this post on 14.04.17] 

If the Residents for Uttlesford Party go from place to place around the district backing every campaign group, such as Save Our Villages, against development in their patch, the mess that is Uttlesford’s Unfinished Local Plan will never be cleared up.

Such cynical opportunism will come unstuck when R4U people from Saffron Walden contradict themselves – like they have done at Elsenham and Henham.

I much prefer to be a member of a party, the Liberal Democrats, whose councillors have consistently opposed Hellsenham because it is in the wrong place; a party that is prepared to support development in the right place, where roads and other services are good. Hard decisions cannot be avoided.

 

 

   3 Comments

3 Responses

  1. Janice Loughlin says:

    It should be noted that only one member of the Planning committee, a Liberal Democrat, voted against approval of the 2 sites on both sides of the road, at the top of Grove Hill at Elsenham.
    This is because of concerns regarding the safety of the two accesses/exits on to such a narrow road and grave misgivings regarding the safety of extra traffic using Grove Hill, a road well known to those who live locally, especially Stansted, Elsenham and Henham residents.
    It should also be noted that this member’s worries were also vigorously expressed regarding the danger to school children, attending Mountfitchet School, who would have to walk up and down this dangerous road at the busiest times of the day.

    Nevertheless, the application was approved and, as local residents will know, these house are in the process of being built.

    Such a pity, too that the Leader of RFU wrote publicly that he supported the Fairfield development at ‘Helsenham’
    RESIDENTS FOR WHO???

  2. Graham says:

    Alan, Hi!

    The R4U link is dead and the Wayback machine hasn’t archived that page!

    Graham

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>