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 1 July, 2017
Uttlesford’s cabinet is to be asked on 10 July to release £200,000 of the remaining balance of money paid into a community pot by developers/homeowners living at Forest Hall Park, Stansted.
The cabinet report is linked here.
I can add little information to this report but would welcome views on how the remaining money should be spent. Please comment on this blog, or on Facebook. You can email me at cllrdean@uttlesford.gov.uk
I guess the only question I would ask is whether there are needs of the “persons occupying or to occupy the dwellings within the (Forest Hall Park) Development” (to quote the legal agreement) that should at least be considered when deciding what to do with the remaining £250,000 of the original pot of £1.4 million? A list of ideas was drawn up several years ago that included a walkable and safe footpath down the western edge of the development to Stoney Common to address the overgrown and uneven path that exists. This has not been implemented.
I have a meeting on Tuesday morning, so any responses received by then will be shared with my district and parish council colleages.
UPDATE Wednesday 5th July 2017
The meeting took place on Tuesday morning. There are now the beginnings an understanding with the parish council that more funding needs to be directed at Forest Hall Park than there has been over the past ten years. More news on that by next week, I hope.
In the meantime, here are the financial facts below (and at this PDF) as they will stand if Uttlesford’s cabinet’s paper is agreed on July 13th. Note the very small sums used directly at FHP. I am hoping the cabinet’s agreement with Stansted Parish Council will be better worded in favour of FHP by the time it is agreed next Thursday.
| S106 STANSTED (FOREST HALL PARK) COMMUNITY POT | |||
| Cabinet date | Proposal | Funding Agreed | Location |
| 18/10/2011 | Improvements to Recreation Ground, Bentfield Upper Green and Mountfitchet Green play areas | 150,000 | Stansted (ex-FHP) |
| 18/10/2011 | Crafton Green complex | 500,000 | Stansted (ex-FHP) |
| 24/10/2013 | Crafton Green complex – additional funding | 100,000 | Stansted (ex-FHP) |
| 10/07/2017 * | Crafton Green complex – additional funding | 200,000 | Stansted (ex-FHP) |
| 08/12/2011 | Birchanger Wood – footpath refurbishment | 35,000 | Birchanger |
| 08/12/2011 | Birchanger Nursery – garden surface renovation | 7,000 | Birchanger |
| 19/01/2012 | St Mary’s Church – comfort facilities | 90,000 | Birchanger |
| 19/01/2012 | Birchanger Sports and Social Club + Birchanger Bowls Club – repairs / modifications | 80,000 | Birchanger |
| 19/01/2012 | Birchanger Village Hall – car park extension, ground levelling, equipment provision | 192,295 | Birchanger |
| 18/10/2011 | FH Park – litter / dog waste bins | 5,000 | Forest Hall Park |
| 19/03/2015 | Picnic benches for FH Park | 2,110 | Forest Hall Park |
| * To be agreed. | Grand total allocated by 10/07/17 | 1,361,405 | |
| Total legal obligations (original fund total) | 1,403,250 | ||
| Balance remaining at 10/07/17 | 41,845 | Corrected for cabinet paper error. | |
Thanks for the numerous suggestions for projects sent on this blog, be email and on Facebook. I will be passing them on to all Stansted’s councillors.
____________________________________________________________________________________
SECOND UPDATE OCTOBER 2021: This post was followed 12 days later by a blog post on 13th July 2017 in which I that advised agreement had been reached – now over four years ago – between UDC and Stansted Parish Council that the latter would replace the money “borrowed” to build what became known as the Mountfitchet Exchange building. The improved arrangement meant that future, but then unknown, projects at Forest Hall Park could be paid for. See this: £200,000 agreed for Crafton Green Project : Stansted Parish Council will replace the money for projects at Forest Hall Park | Cllr Alan Dean (mycouncillor.org.uk)
Sadly, in this month of October 2021, a candidate for a parish council seat vacancy attacked the parish council – when none was justified – by quoting the first post only. This person failed to relate the truth that the matter was rectified in less than a fortnight after my first complaining post – astonishingly over four years ago! That person was elected to the parish council this month and should correct the falsehoods that stirred up public discontent and no doubt contributed to an election victory on a very low voter turnout.
10 Comments
I agree with a safe walking route from FHP to Stoney Common/ the station.
The development desperately needs the promised shop. The new coop helps but it is still a long walk for the elderly.
A footpath down to the main road.
Bus shelters at the croudace end of the development.
More yellow lines to prevent parking, on the junctions in particular.
I ageee with a safe walking route from FHP to Stoney Common/ the station.
Fixing the state of the roads and pavements so no one falls over cracks in the pavement or fall down some of the potholes. In other parts of the village if possible.
Please could you consider a footpath along Forest Hall Road. This would run between Stansted Road (B1383) to join the existing path that finishes just before Bentley Drive. Walking along this stretch of road is currently dangerous. A path this end of Stansted would mirror the path at the North end of town
A field for football and for recreation. There are not any large open spaces on FHP.
Playground facilities for school kids upto the age of 12. FHP only caters for children pre school. In fact some of this equipment should be swapped and upgraded so it’s more challenging for school aged children as so many now of the development are at school age.
A swimming pool. The local area really lacks this facility.
I’m in favour of a path from the bridge on stansted road along the beginning of foresthall road to the development. This is a dangerous piece of road and the amount of people who use it for running and getting to bus stops would be a welcome safety measure.
More yellow lines on FHP would help emergancy service access and visibility out of junctions.
I’m against a shop as I believe the central aspect of the villages economy needs to be protected. Litter, vehicle access for delivery and all of the cons have been well discussed. I feel that space would be better use for the school or a community centre.
I disagree in that a shop is vital. Not only is it essential to make the site sustainable but there are a lot of us like me who are in their sixties for whom a convenience store is essential. It was promised as part of our initial purchase and was understood by the majority as an integral part of the development. Indeed, every single survey done has shown that four fifths of residents want a shop. Nimbyism should not be allowed to prevail in this way, especially when the whole site was only permitted on the basis that a shop would be provided. I wouldn’t mind but most of those protesting got a good deal on their properties because of the likely proximity of the planned shop…
@Sue Belo. Have you heard of home shopping. It’s great for those that struggle to make it out to the shops because they deliver direct to your door ! I also recommend amazon prime for the more non essentials.
I would suggest the funds are spent to tidy up the undeveloped land, keeping tidy existing public spaces and some yellow lines, parking permits wouldn’t be a bad idea to ease access to narrow
Over crowded roads.
Of course, one of the reasons our roads are overcrowded is the high number of home-deliveries, especially the ones that park to cause congestion.
I definitely think you should put double yellow lines on FHP @ it wouldn’t hurt to put speed bumps in as the cars speed down walson way so fast
[…] Uttlesford’s Cabinet made this Key Decision on Monday. See earlier story. […]