PUBLISHED: 12:43 24 January 2008 | UPDATED: 18:00 31 May 2010
WHY Elsenham? The developers - Fairfield - already have control (whatever that means) of the land. We are talking about an area from the railway line, up to and joining Henham and down to the Elsenham/Thaxted road. If the council does not approve this
WHY Elsenham? The developers - Fairfield - already "have control" (whatever that means) of the land.
We are talking about an area from the railway line, up to and joining Henham and down to the Elsenham/Thaxted road.
If the council does not approve this site, permission will surely be granted on appeal and UDC will lose control over detail planning. As a whole or piecemeal, this site will be developed.
Our existing town centres and infrastructure are at saturation point. Any further development must include a new secondary school. In a damage limitation context option four would seem the best choice. Elsenham is the wrong place.
The Fairfield study of the site is worth reading. It predicts nose to tail traffic along roads scarcely wide enough for two cars. It assumes that the airport will not expand and cut off an essential link to the M11/A120.
The researchers ignore the restrictions of Stansted village. There is no mention of toot-toot railway bridge, already a death trap and of Elsenham school being on a major access. Figures do not include traffic generated by essential new schools. I missed any proposal for the new sewage works, police station, Post Office or fire station! We need input from the water and power agencies.
Tacking bits on to existing settlements will not solve basic district-wide infrastructure problems. It will simply make them worse. If central government wants this scale of development in a rural area it must fund the infrastructure.