Chairman's Update - 11th May 2012

Dear All

At a Cabinet Meeting of the Uttlesford District Council held last night (10th May 2012), the infamous 'Option 4' was rejected as the Districts Local Development Framework (LDF) strategy in favour of a hierarchical approach. This decision is still subject to the next housing consultation commencing on 8th June. It will be essential that residents respond to this consultation supporting this Cabinet decision.

We can no doubt expect a planning application to be submitted by Fairfield, in an attempt to overturn this fair and open LDF process. The Joint Parish Council Committee is working to prepare for this application and will publish details as they emerge. Meanwhile please wait for advice on how to respond to the next consultation

Nick Baker

Scrutiny Committee - 8th May 2012

The Scrutiny Committee of Uttlesford District Council will discuss and recommend a Distribution Strategy for the Local Plan.  A very important meeting which could see the beginning of the demise of the infamous Option 4 in favour of a dispersed housing strategy.

Please see the following documents

Item 5 - Distribution Strategy for Local Plan

Chairman’s Update - 29th February 2012

On the 5^th March we come to the end of the current consultation on the Local Development Framework. If you haven’t responded yet please do so immediately. We need a response from every member of the household please.

Fairfield, the Developer of Option 4, have produced a glossy brochure extolling the advantages of their development. They sent the brochure through the Royal Mail to every household in Uttlesford.  They produced the brochure in the Uttlesford District Council (U.D.C) consultation colours, trying to convince residents that it was an official consultation document from U.D.C. U.D.C have issued a disclaimer on their website.  Fairfield's message to Uttlesford residents?  If you support development in Elsenham, U.D.C won’t need to put more development in your area. What a cynical approach, they are unable to support their development on grounds that it is the right development in the right place, so they resort to blackmail. What lovely people to work with! If this doesn’t make you cross enough to put pen to paper nothing will.

The J.P.C.S.G Parish Councils have responded to the consultation and are reassured that the right decision will be made by U.D.C. We can expect a planning application from Fairfield in the future, but are confident it will be rejected.

Nick Baker

Dear All

Our campaign seems to have been littered with requests to respond to consultations and as explained by Nick below, whilst we appear to have been successful up to now, we cannot relax as we enter the period of this latest one.

In the next few days the information packs from the Joint Parish Council Steering Group with be arriving through your letter boxes.  In preparing the advice contained therein we have yet again commissioned our expert to examine closely the latest U.D.C policy, source documents and consultation questions.  Enclosed in the packs you will find a summary of his advice together with a response form and another U.D.C questionnaire called ''About You" which apparently they are legally bound canvas you.

We ask you to pay close attention to the experts advice.  Be unambiguous in your contributions and as far as possible express your reasoning in your own words.

U.D.C have been very thorough in producing information which outlines the purpose of the consultation, and with providing links to related documents, etc. (Please click here to view). 

Particularly important is the section entitled, How do I get Involved?.  I will not repeat the information contained therein, but you will find links to the Limehouse Electronic System of responding and to the forms should use should you wish to answer by Email or by Post.  There is also an explanatory animated Site Tour should you wish to take it.

Whatever way you choose to take part please remember that it is essential we have as many responses as possible.  That means all members of your family.  The future of our villages and way of life depends on your contributions.

Please also remember that there are Public Exhibitions (10.00am to 8.00pm) on Developing Uttlesford on the following dates and locations.

Friday, 27 January - Community Information Centre, Thaxted
Monday 30 January - Church House, Newport
Tuesday 31 January - Foakes Hall, Great Dunmow
Thursday 2 February - Priors Green Community Centre, Takeley
Friday 3 February - Memorial Hall, Elsenham
Monday 6 February - Day Centre, Stansted
Tuesday 7 February - Town Hall, Saffron Walden
Thursday 9 February - Community Centre, Great Chesterford

Chairman's Update 23rd January 2012

Dear All

The latest U.D.C consultation about the Local Development Framework (L.D.F) has started and runs until 5th March. This Consultation asks residents where they would like future housing in the District. It suggests a hierarchal system with Saffron Walden and Great Dunmow taking much of future development with seven key settlements taking some development.  Elsenham has been identified as a key settlement. It also identifies villages that are suitable for a scale of development that would reinforce their role as a local service centre, Henham is in this category. The infamous Option 4 is no longer the preferred option, but the housing land at this location is included in a list of sites across Uttlesford as having potential for housing development.

We need to respond to this latest consultation with the same energy and vigour we have achieved in the past. Our response to earlier consultations has changed the thinking on where the housing should be placed in Uttlesford. This is not the time to relax; we absolutely must get each and every resident to respond to this consultation. To this end the J.P.C.S.G (Save Our Village) campaign has prepared an pack which will be delivered to every household in Henham and Elsenham advising residents how to respond to the consultation. Also in the pack is advice on how to respond to the consultation questions. When you receive the pack please take a few minutes to respond.

We shall be collating the packs at OSCA in Henham on Thursday 26th January at 1900 hrs. If you can spare an hour to help us we would be more than grateful.

Nick Baker
Chairman J.P.C.S.G

Chairman's Update 21st December 2011

Hi everybody

As expected the Uttlesford District Council Cabinet met last night (20th) and approved the papers for the upcoming Local Development Framework (L.D.F) consultation. This action abandons the old L.D.F options including the infamous Option 4 and recommends a policy of sharing the housing needs across Uttlesford.  An exact housing figure is not as yet given.

The consultation on the new L.D.F starts on the 20th January and runs until the beginning of March. The J.P.C.S.G is meeting on the 12th January to help prepare the community on how best to respond to the consultation. Please do not respond to the consultation until you have read the recommendations we shall offer you. We expect to get something through your letterbox by the end of January.

Chairman's Report - December 2012

Hi All

I wonder if any of our supporters against the development in  Elsenham expected us to still be campaigning four Christmas's and New Year's later. Well we are, and although things have changed quite a lot, the threat of a development of some size is still real, and hasn't gone away. What has hopefully changed however is the Local Development Framework (L.D.F) document. The last draft L.D.F showed the infamous Option 4 as the preferred  Option by Uttlesford District Council (U.D.C). This is now changing and on 20th December the U.D.C Cabinet will consider a dispersal option for housing initially in eight settlements. You may remember that this has always been the favoured option of the 'Save Our Village' campaign,  If the Cabinet accept this dispersal option it will replace the present draft L.D.F and Option 4 will cease to exist.

The new L.D.F, with the dispersal option, will then be consulted on in exactly the same way that the Option 4 L.D.F was three years ago.. The timeframe is, consultation with residents between 20th January and 5th March. The results of the Residents Consultation will be analysed and published and proposals for the New L.D.F published by July/August.

None of these processes and procedures can stop Fairfield from applying for planning permission on the NE Elsenham land. However if Option 4 is no longer the preferred option on the new L.D.F, then we hope we can fight this planning application in a forceful manner, this time alongside U.D.C.

Your J.P.C.S.G will be meeting early in the New Year to discuss how to advise you to respond to the consultation. In the meanwhile the J.P.C.S.G wishes you a very Happy Christmas and wishes us all a very successful 2012.

Nick Baker

Chairman JPCSG 

Hi All

I encouraged you to sign the National Trust Petition. Can I also encourage you to send an e mail to the Government. It only takes a minute and the format can be found at the Campaign to Protect Rural England web site at www.cpre.org.uk

The National Trust is campaigning for people to respond to the Government’s reform threats to our green spaces.  Join their petition by clicking here

The Sunday Telegraph featured a well balanced full page article by Andrew Gilligan headed 'Developers get the green light after Tory about turn'. Prominent in the article was our campaign.  A condensed version (not including the picture of our protesters) can be found by clicking here.

Chairman's Update

Dear Resident,

I thought it was time to update you on the present position with the proposed housing development in Elsenham. You will remember that any progress on the Local Development Framework (L.D.F) was suspended late last year, whilst Uttlesford District Council (U.D.C) conducted a housing numbers appraisal to ascertain exactly how many houses it needs for the period up to 2027. This work has now been completed and at the LDFG held on the 28th February a number was arrived at which the U.D.C planning officers felt would satisfy the Inquiry Inspector in due course that the L.D.F was 'sound'.  That number was  2,500 dwellings over the planned period to 2027 being a build rate of 295 per annum. It is interesting to note that the recent build rate is 430 per annum. This substantially reduces the rate of growth previously imposed by Labour Government targets from the additional 4,200 dwellings in the plan period, (over and above existing planning consents) to the 2500, now accepted by the District Council at the Environment Committee on the 17th March 2011.

You may ask that as the Housing figures have been reduced, why can't U.D.C just scrap the existing L.D.F including Options 3 and 4 and start again. I have asked this question and been assured that legally this cannot happen, but what can and will happen is that the L.D.F, with the new housing figures, will be consulted on again in October/ November 2011. It is plainly obvious that Option 4 no longer an option, as there is no need for a single settlement of 3200 dwellings as we only need 2500. However Options 1,2 and 3 are still on the table until the fresh consultation takes a new direction. Option 3 is potentially very damaging with 1400 houses and the fear that if they are built, the development could be added to in years beyond 2027.

However I asked U.D.C Planning for their comment, and although the answer is a little obscure, the statement finishes off on a optimistic note.

' Limited weight can be attached to consultation documents that are part of preparing a new development plan in determining planning applications, particularly where the response to consultation does not indicate general support for the proposed approach. Hopefully the reduced scale of housing growth on which the council will be consulting later this year will attract greater approval from communities. Reducing the scale of growth will necessitate a review of where it could best take place, as a new settlement would be too small to have the range of facilities its residents would need. These implications will need to form part of the planned consultations.'

I also asked our MP Sir Alan Haselhurst his view and he said, ' I welcome the council's decision to reduce the scale of it's housing plans in view of the impending disappearance of the Regional Spatial Strategy. Although there are legalities to be observed and procedures to be followed before a new L.D.F can be endorsed, it is clear to me that the slate has been effectively wiped clean. What is needed now is not what was needed on previous assumptions. So, if anyone asks me, I would say that options one, two, three and four are dead in the water'

Complicating all of these issues is the Budget announcement that seems to be at odds with the Governments stated policies on communities having a large say in local developments. The Budget seems to say that planning applications for developments would have a 'presumption of acceptance' with a much faster process than at present. In addition the Government is  offering District Councils large inducements to build more dwellings, especially affordable homes. We are taking professional advice on these matters.

So there you have it. Some cause for optimism but with an strong underlying message of caution. Your Save Our Village committee continues to work very hard to steer a path between these mixed messages. I am sorry this note is a little long, but best you are all updated in the fullest possible way.

Nick Baker

Chairman J.P.C.S.G

Chairman's Report - November

Dear All

You may have seen that the Government lost a High Court case on Wednesday, which declared Eric Pickles action of abolishing the top down housing figures illegal. The case was brought by a number of building companies who had advanced planning permission for some large scale housing developments before they were cancelled by Local Authorities using the Pickles decision.

This decision shouldn't worry the Save our Village campaign as no planning applications are in place for the Elsenham development. The Government intend to enshrine the abolishment of the housing figures in a Communities Act which will starts it's passage through Parliament later this month. If developers apply for planning permission before this Act becomes law, expected to be in about 12 months time,  Local Authorities have to take the fact that the top down housing figures are about to be abolished in account when decided the planning application.

Nick Baker
12th November 2010

Almost three years to the day when the Environment Committee introduced their notorious preferred Option 4, the residents of Henham and Elsenham turned out in large numbers to hear the latest progress on the Core Strategy.

Prior to the start of the meeting, our Chairman Nick Baker gave an excellent address to the committee which set out the feelings of the J.P.C.S.G, (click here to view). The Chair of the meeting, Councillor Barker, welcomed residents by saying that with the new government, 'we had a new opportunity to move towards a new plan'.  Roger Harborough, Uttlesford's Development Director summarised the latest consultation, which reinforced, yet again, the strong opposition to a single settlement. 

For the first time since I have been attending these meetings I found myself listening, (for the most part), to a constructive discussion on the change in planning obligations on local government and in particular, the motion before the committee which was, 'That a review of the scale of growth appropriate for Uttlesford be taken'.  The leader of the council, Councillor Ketteridge, proposed an amendment which read,  'That a review of the scale of growth appropriate for Uttlesford be taken and subsequently a location of that growth'.  He made the point that new guidelines from the government have yet to be published although it had been stressed that the 'top down' allocation of housing numbers was a thing of the past. 

It was also stated that the council believed that when the number of houses needed was calculated, the 2,500 houses already in the pipeline with planning permission be taken into account.

Various views were expressed including that parishes should be consulted on local need and location and any initiatives should not be 'development led'.  Councillor David Morson stressed the need for the political parties to work together for the good of Uttlesford.  He asked that a the committee should state that the threat of a single settlement be removed.  This was obviously met with great support from local residents.  Councillor Ketteridge again spoke and it seemed from what he was saying that we were back to the drawing board.  Addressing residents he said words to the effect of, 'I am not sure what you are worried about - you have got what you wanted'.  However, the Committee, for reasons best know to themselves and to the disappointment of residents, refused to categorically confirm that option 4 was no longer an issue.

For the first time that I can remember a motion relating to the issue passed unanimously.

That does this mean?  We will wait and see.  It seems that it will be at least a year before the housing need analysis becomes available and after that? - who knows. 

Perhaps maybe the 'Sword' of Damocles'  has been removed for the time being and replaced by a 'Penknife'.

B.B.

Subsequent to the above, in the front page article in September 9th's Dunmow and Stansted Observer, Steve Biart the director of land for the Fairfield Partnership apparently said that the company would still press ahead with its proposals.

Chairman's Update

Hi All,

This is a short note to update you on the present position with the housing at Elsenham. The results of the last consultation have now been published and can be found on the link on our website. You will be pleased to know that 64% of the responses were against Option 4, and generally, the responses to the related issues were in our favour.

Of course, since the end of the consultation, the Coalition Government have written to Councils taking away the obligation to built houses based on the last Governments top down figures. U.D.C have always said that their hands were tied by these housing figures, hence the Local Development Framework (L.D.F) and the threat of 3200 houses at Elsenham. In future U.D.C will be able to set their own housing figures based on the needs of the District.

The J.P.C.S.G agree with this approach and on Tuesday the 7th September at 1930 hrs at the U.D.C Council Offices, the Environment Committee will consider the results of the consultation and agree a way forward. The way forward, as recommended by the officers, is to park the present L.D.F process and conduct a housing needs study, which would report back in autumn 2011. Whilst this is sensible and the proper way to  start a housing review, we would rather see the present discredited present L.D.F abandoned and a new L.D.F started once the housing figures were known. We think it unreasonable to have the threat of housing hanging over our heads for another 2/3 years.

We would also like to see more co-operation between the political parties at U.D.C, and indeed more co-operation with the Parish and Town Councils, to resolve the issues once the scale of the problem is known. 

I would like to encourage you to attend the U.D.C meeting on Tuesday, it is important that we continue to show our elected members of the District Council that this threat of large scale housing in Elsenham is something that matters to the residents. I would like to see the council chambers packed.

Nick Baker

Chairman J.P.C.S.G

SAVE OUR VILLAGE 2010

ISSUED BY THE JOINT PARISH COUNCILS STEERING GROUP

ELSENHAM/HENHAM HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT UPDATE JULY 2010

Now the general election is behind us we are waiting for the promises and commitments made by our politicians to come to fruition.  We have seen the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Eric Pickles MP, has committed to abolishing the East of England housing plans.  However, we are told that Uttlesford District Council (U.D.C) is continuing with the Local Development Framework (L.D.F) consultation process which is due to finish in July 2010, followed by a report to be made at the September U.D.C Environment Committee.  This is in spite of many local authorities tearing up their plans based on Eric Pickles letter to all local authority chief planners.  The opportunity now being given by central Government is for local planning authorities to reconsider their housing requirement meaning that the Core Strategy needs only to find an additional 660 dwellings in the Uttlesford district and that the allocation for North East Elsenham is unnecessary. It is said that this continued commitment by U.D.C to its current L.D.F proposed solution (of Option 4, with 3000 homes at Elsenham and Henham) is due to their concern of legal action against them if they don’t continue.  Clearly, the instruction from Eric Pickles has fallen on deaf ears there!

We have been aware for almost a year that the Fairfield Partnership has been trying to sell their land bank which includes the land under option between Elsenham and Henham.  We are advised that negotiations are at an advanced stage for this land to be sold in its current form to private equity firm MGPA or Investor Revcap.  This is not good news for the Save Our Village campaign.  It means that at any time in the future, probably sooner than later, planning applications will be made to UDC to initiate development so that the buyers get a return on their investment.  This is now probably the biggest threat to our campaign as we will be dependant on U.D.C supporting a policy of developing housing to meet the needs of the Uttlesford community and not what developers want to do purely for profit at our expense.

 However, there is a considerable amount of land throughout the district which is under option by developers.  It is important that we keep U.D.C focussed on ensuring essential development in our communities is rational, proportionate and fair.

 The next important stage of the process is to ensure that U.D.C have listened to the government, the DCLG, our campaign and finally ditch their plans for L.D.F Options 3 and 4.  It will be much appreciated if as many people as possible attend the next U.D.C Environment Committee on:

7th SEPTEMBER 2010 AT 7.30PM - U.D.C OFFICES SAFFRON WALDEN

 We regret to say that we must now consider the Save Our Village campaign as a long term project.  This is due to the very serious threat from long term investors whose only interest is in getting a financial return by pushing for the fields between Elsenham and Henham to be covered in concrete.

 THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT.

Where we stand following the election

Dear All

The J.P.C.S.G view is quite simple. The Conservatives told us that if they got into power they would get rid of the East of England top down housing figures and ask U.D.C to plan their own housing requirements bottom up. Sir Alan Haselhurst  repeated that promise in his election manifesto.

The Housing Minister Grant Shapps gave the public meetings at Elsenham and Henham the same message. We fully expect the coalition Government to honour these promises. The Liberal Democrats had a very similar policy, save some disagreement over social housing numbers. This must mean the end of Option 4 and back to a more sensible policy as outlined in the S.H.L.A.A. where U.D.C sets it's housing numbers in accordance with local needs.

There is a general agreement across the Parish Councils that we are all in need of building a sensible number of affordable homes to support local needs and support the existing infrastructures.

We now look to both the U.D.C Conservatives and the Government to honour their promises and design a sensible housing programme for U.D.C, which is supported by the people. Let this be an end to developer led, extremely large, daft, unwanted developments such as the Elsenham Option 4.

Nick Baker Chairman

Our thanks go to Gerry and Sheena Bigland, Karen George-Lafferty, Julie Churchouse, Clare Robertson who collectively style themselves as the 'Non Committee' for their excellent organisation together with compare Ed Byrne and all the others who helped in so many ways including the umpires of the Rally Rounders.

This year the total sum to be donated to the Save our Village fund was an excellent £634 and not £1040 as I previously reported. (I misunderstood the email I received - apologies)

I am very pleased to announce that the Spring Food Night raised £450 and that so far this year, the coffee mornings have raised £491.  A really splendid effort by all.

Tickets can now be obtained for the summer evening meal on Friday 2nd July from Jennifer on 814 434.

Chairman's Report

21st April

Well the campaign is over for now and I want to thank all of you who submitted your questionnaires and our canvassers for their excellent work in helping villagers respond to the consultation.  U.D.C will realise, whether they want to hear it or not, that there is huge opposition across the District to this stupid, idiotic plan to place 3000 + houses at Elsenham.

I am much encouraged with the opposition to the proposed development from both  East Herts District Council and Bishops Stortford Town Council, who represent a market town only five miles from Elsenham and already swamped by development. We were also pleased to see the submission from Takeley Parish Council, an area which has also seen much disorganised development, which supports a development at Great Chesterfield rather than Elsenham. 

Well, we now await the results of the consultation and the impact on the situation from the General Election. I remain positive that good common sense will prevail, and much like the demise of the 2nd runway, we shall also see democracy in action and a just result. If not than I pledge that the J.P.C.S.G will fight this crazy development every inch of the way and with your support we shall win.

Nick Baker

Chairman JPCSG

Two very good meetings took place  on Thursday 11th and Friday 12th March at Elsenham and Henham respectively.  In the region of a 100 people attended each. On the evening of Monday 15th , nearly 40 residents from both villages turned up at OSCA to put the information packs together and managed the job in under an hour.  Brilliant! Well done everybody.

Please Visit the Consultation Page and Send in your Responses
Click Here

Click here

Uttlesford District Council Housing Consultation

Dear Resident

By now you will have received your Consultation Papers through your letterbox. They are addressed to the ‘Occupier’ so I hope you haven't thrown them away as junk mail!  The J.P.C.S.G is asking you at present to delay responding to the consultation which ends on 9th April. The reason for this is that we are busy meeting  with both planning and legal experts to give us best advice on how to respond to this. The documents issued for the consultation available on the U.D.C web site are detailed, and many of the assumptions need challenging by people who can understand the detail. We are doing this and by the middle of March we shall issue specific advice on how to respond.  

Public meetings are planned at Elsenham (11th) and Henham (12th) Village Halls on in March at 1930 hours, where we will have the opportunity to discuss the consultation in more detail.

Thank you for your patience

Nick Baker

Forthcoming Events - Click Here

The next consultation sponsored by Uttlesford district council takes place between

Monday 15th  February and Friday 9th April 2010

 U.D.C will be posting a brochure to each household in early February.

Please read it carefully, but we ask you not respond until you have received more information from the the experts employed by the the Joint Parish Council Steering Group.  We have yet to see the brochure, but our experts are currently analyzing the various studies, some of which have only become available recently.          

We will be organising Public Meetings in Henham and Elsenham as soon as we have all the information and updating you on this site.

Now available - click here to view 

1. That further consultation be carried out and the Preferred Options be reviewed in the light of the responses in mid 2010 before proceeding to submission.

2. That the consultation be on the basis

I.   that the Core Strategy assumes the Stansted Airport G1 development will be implemented

II.  that Option 4 comprise 3000 homes to the north east of Elsenham; 750 homes at Great Dunmow; 30 at Great Chesterford; 50 at Newport; 20 at Stansted Mountfitchet; 30 at Takeley; 30 at Thaxted and 90 distributed across other villages.

III. that the Preferred Options for Core Strategy Policies address the issues and include the proposed changes identified in the table in paragraph 20 of the report

3. That officers review the findings of the ongoing technical studies and bring a further report to the committee before consultation is launched should the findings indicate an adjustment to the preferred option may be required.

Whilst I and others did not fully understand the semantics of the ensuing discussion, on the suggestion of the Committee Vice Chairman, Councillor Howell from Saffron Walden (Audley), the recommendation was changed to a reduction to 500 houses at Great Dunmow and adding 250 houses at Saffron Walden. Whilst introducing his proposal for the change this Councillor stated he was in favour of the single settlement in Elsenham, it being 'the least unpalatable proposal'.  This beggars belief in view of the recently published technical reports. He also linked the need for these houses to the expansion of Stansted Airport.  Previously, the concept of an 'Airport Town' has been denied by U.D.C. and whilst this may be a personal view of the Councillor, I find it very worrying.

A number of speakers, including a representative from the campaign against the Boxted Wood development spoke eloquently and sensibly of the dangers of a single settlement anywhere. A recurring theme was that distribution of housing throughout the District was far more popular, sensible and sustainable.

The recommendation was passed (with the changes) and the Councillors who had spoken against the single settlement for some reason abstained rather that voting against.  I and others could not understand why.

We are now left with another consultation sometime in the new year of either 6 or 8 weeks with little or no detail on how/when it will be progressed, its range or how the views will submitted and collated.

We will keep you informed.

The Water study is damning on development on the proposed site at Elsenham particularly in relation to ‘Wastewater’. Considerable major capacity upgrades would have to be made and the availability of land to support these upgrades may be an issue, as will achieving the necessary discharge consent standards. In addition, the sewers that approach the ‘Wastewater’ treatment site would be restricted from being upsized by the narrow streets and existing utilities, requiring the construction of new bypass sewers around the urban areas. The report identifies other potential building sites in Uttlesford that don't have these problems

We have not seen the Transport Study yet, but believe it follows the previous suggestion of all the traffic coming from the new development going down Hall Road to Takeley. We have always said this is daft as traffic going North will not want to head South first.  

So where does that leave us?  We await an opportunity to listen to U.D.C debating these reports in public. We will seek our own expert advice on the contents of the reports to challenge any maverick decisions. Meanwhile U.D.C go through a lengthy consultation process on where to put the 1200 houses required by the L.D.F. on top of the 3000 houses planned for  Elsenham. They have selected 6 options for the placement of these 1200 houses.

It was two years ago that U.D.C put us through the pain of a consultation over Christmas and the New Year. Vital, they said, that it had to be completed over that period!  We can expect further consultations in the New Year and we will have to be ready to respond. I thank the Villagers for continuing to hold events to fund raise for save our Villages, and I thank the hard working J.P.C.S.G committee for their continued efforts.

Everything we have been saying about the stupidity of a large development in Elsenham is now showing itself to be true. Only political dogma keeps the scheme going.

Nick Baker

Chairman

J.P.C.S.G - 23rd November

STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT- 2008

Uttlesford District Council have published a draft report on land availability  in the district which they introduce as follows-

1. This is the first Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for Uttlesford District Council.  It is a study of potential housing on sites within the district over the period up to 2026.

2. The SHLAA has been prepared in accordance with national Planning Policy Statement PPS3 “Housing”, a practice guidance published by the Government in July 2007, and more detailed guidance prepared by Uttlesford District Council.  This process has involved key stakeholder participation and a SHLAA Panel.  The SHLAA replaces the Uttlesford Urban Capacity Study 2005.

They ask for comments on the Draft Report be sent to Sarah Nicholas at snicholas@uttlesford.gov.uk or by post to the council offices, London Road, Saffron Walden CB11 4ER by September 18, 2009.  Both Henham and Elsenham PCs will be sending their observations.

To view the report and the appendices click here and then go half way down the page to Housing / Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, which lists the report and its eight appendixes. Appendix 7 and 8 are the two documents of particular interest.  Appendix 7 is the table giving general details of potential sites in all villages and Appendix 8 opens the web page to the individual villages' Site Appraisal Sheets and Maps.

Hi All

 Perhaps by now you will have seen the good news that NE Elsenham has not been selected as one of the first four Eco Towns to be given the go ahead. John Healy the DCLG Minister has selected  4 sites to be commenced fairly soon but  talks of a second wave of Eco Towns to be underway by 2020. We believe that we were selected as a special case because of the sensible logical arguments we made in the consultations. So for the moment the threat of an Eco Town has gone away, however it may return so we will keep alert to the situation and continue to articulate our case against.

The major threat to us now is Option 4 in the U.D.C plans. We must continue to fight this option and indeed any option which involves a large mass of housing at NE Elsenham. We have seen the latest plans from U.D.C which still supports Option 4. How can it be that the DCLG finds good reasons not to go ahead with an Eco Town on this site, yet U.D.C still supports the building of 3000 houses?

So reason to raise a glass today, but put away the rest of the bottle for the real celebration when we persuade U.D.C of the total madness of siting a mass of housing at NE Elsenham.

 Nick Baker

Chairman

16th July 08

Elsenham

Eco-towns present a unique opportunity to provide more affordable housing where it is needed, while pioneering new green ways of living that will act as a showcase for new development everywhere.

On 4 November 2008 the Department for Communities and Local Government published for consultation a Draft Eco-Towns Planning Policy Statement (PPS), Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Impact Assessment.  In the accompanying press notice, the Housing Minister outlined the shortlist of locations with the potential to be an eco-town and this included North East Elsenham.  Our consultation on the draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) and accompanying documentation closed on 30th April 2009.

We are now considering all representations before finalising the Eco-towns Planning Policy Statement later this year.  This will include the list of locations with potential to be an eco-town.  Along with these documents we will also publish a Government response to the consultation together with a summary report of responses received.  Following this individual schemes in the shortlisted locations will then need to submit planning applications, which will be for local authorities to determine through the planning process.

Hanley Grange

Since you submitted your petition on 17 April 2008 Hanley Grange has withdrawn from the eco-towns process, with the promoters deciding that they needed more time to develop their proposal.

While assessment of the location is included in the Sustainability Appraisal for Hanley Grange and Cambridgeshire published on 4th November 2008 the Government would not consider taking forward a scheme for this location before the next review of the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS).  The promoters would expect it to be considered as part of the planned review of the RSS.

Chairman's Update

Hi All,

You may by now have thought that we've all gone away and the Save Our Village Campaign is over.  Far from it.  We are at the end of the DCLG consultation and are awaiting the results which are expected at the end of July. Having said that we have had so much slippage on dates, don't hold your breath.  We know we had a magnificent response to the consultation and if the DCLG take any notice of public consultations they can come to no other conclusion than scrap this scheme immediately.

We have had some support from the consultation response from SHELTER who have come out against an Eco Town in our location. They have selected 5 other sites which is helpful. Essex County Council have also come out strongly against the Eco Town in their response. Uttlesford DC have responded, but with their unresolved position on Option 4, they were regrettably unable to come out strongly against the Eco Town, very disappointing.

Ray Gooding our County Councillor, brought Lord Hanningfield, Leader of E.C.C. to Henham Post Office today 27th May and he was able to repeat his unequivocal opposition to both the Eco Town and the large settlement Options 4.  A change of Government, he said, would mean the end of both proposals.

So your committee continues to meet and plan for every possibility, and we will continue the fight until we are rid of these ridiculous building plans.

May I thank the Henham Fete Committee for a donation of £725 from the Village Fete, this together with other fund raising from the Elsenham Quiz, and other events in both Villages means we are funded to continue our fight.

Nick Baker

Chairman

Click here to view

With reference to the comment below regarding the full council meeting held on Tuesday 21st April, Henham Councillor Simon Lee sent the following letter to the Herts and Essex Observer and it appeared in the Dunmow and Stansted addition.  He pulls no punches in very ably summing  up the views of the residents of Henham and Elsenham who attended the meeting.

Click here to read

From Mr. Henry Cleary, Deputy Director of the Housing and Growth Programmes Team at the Department of Communities and Local Government   He acknowledges all our letters and sets out criteria for selecting eco-towns, although he does not give information when the choices will be made other than later this year.

Click here to view

Minutes

Since our campaign started, in common with many other residents of Henham and Elsenham I have attended many council meetings and most of them have left us disappointed at the outcomes.  We have learnt to live with that, but along the road have become, to say the least, cynical.  Equally, as editor of this web site I have refrained from personal attacks on individuals whose attitudes and motivation I have found very hard to understand.

At the conclusion of voting on Item 8ii on the agenda i.e. "The Environment Committee resolved on 17 March 2009 to require a robust report to be submitted to this meeting rebutting the Elsenham eco-town proposal in response to the Government’s consultation on the Eco-towns Planning Policy Statement,"  I was perhaps the first out of the Council Chamber and watched the many residents file out in almost total silence.  Cynical and disillusioned as we had become, I sensed a new feeling towards what we had witnessed, which I can only describe as something bordering on contempt for local government politics.

Many of you have responded to the DCLG Consultation of their Draft Planning Policy statement prior to the previous deadline in March and it was only because of an extended deadline to 30th April that U.D.C. were pressured into a response of their own.  An accompanying briefing paper suggested four response options for the council to consider. Response Option Three was the only one that could be construed as a robust rejection of placing a Eco-town at North East Elsenham.

Prior to the meeting, Henham Parish Councillor Simon Lee urged the council to adopt Response Option Three as the only option that sent a unambiguous message to the DCLG.  When the debate started District Councillors Catherine Dean, David Morson and others repeated the message, but a motion by Catherine Dean to strengthen the response was rejected by the council.  Despite reminders to the Council that paragraph 6(9) of the Draft PPS referred specifically to Elsenham and that Saffron Walden Conservatives had issued a communiqué earlier in the week quoting senior Conservatives' opposition to eco-towns and the Local Development Framework, (LDF), Councillor Barker proposed that the Council adopt Option Response One (with a brief amended mention of NE Elsenham) be adopted.  Seconded by Councillor Cheetham, the Conservative members present voted unanimously in favour and this much weakened response was carried. 

BARD LAUNCHES ECO-TOWN JUDICIAL REVIEW APPEAL

The BARD Campaign today (18th March) lodged an application with the Court of Appeal, seeking permission to appeal the ruling by Mr Justice Walker dated 27 January 2009 that the Government’s consultation on its April 2008 shortlist document: “Eco-towns Living a Greener Future” was lawful.

Environment Meeting - Tuesday 17th March 2009

Hi All,

Firstly thank you if you managed to attend last night's U.D.C Environment Committee meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to approve the U.D.C response to the DCLG consultation. The J.P.C.S.G were very keen to ensure that U.D.C responded very strongly against the eco-town at Elsenham. The draft response prepared by the Planning Officers for approval was anything but strong, and having read it several times I was not sure whether U.D.C were for, or against, the eco town!

Petrina Lees from J.P.C.S.G kick started the meeting by asking the Committee how they intended to respond given that last year they had past a motion vigorously condemning the eco-town and agreeing to campaign against it. We then moved on to the debate on the response and Catherine Dean proposed a motion that reiterated the very strong U.D.C opposition to the eco-town and called for more work on the paper that would then  be debated by  the  full Council on 21st April.

I'm afraid that at this point the meeting descended into farce with political mudslinging between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. The leader of the Council Jim Ketteridge, read a long prepared statement which outlined the past history of the housing situation blaming much of the current position on the Lib Dems. This was all very unhelpful given that the agenda item was to discuss the Councils response to the DCLG consultation. In the end Cllr. Dean's proposal was passed and we hope to see a much stronger response put forward to full Council on the 21st.

Please make a note in your diaries for this date.

I must say the evening was not without a little humour. When Cllr Barker called for a vote on Cllr Dean's motion many of the Conservatives were not sure which way to vote, and looked like rabbits caught in the headlights.

I am pleased that yet again we turned out in numbers and I think influenced another look at the consultation response.

Environment Meeting - Tuesday 17th March - 7.30pm at the Council Chambers, London Road, Saffron Walden

Minutes Now available - Click here

Once again the people of Elsenham and Henham turned out in a good numbers to hear the U.D.C. Environment Committee discuss the proposed Eco-town at North-east Elsenham.  On behalf of the Joint Parishes Council Steering Group I thank you for your continuing support - BB

Item 7 on the meeting agenda was:-

Response to the Government’s consultation on its draft Eco-Towns Planning Policy Statement. 

Item for decision:-

Further to the Committee’s resolution of 18 November 2008, this report will recommend further points for incorporation in the Council’s response, including those arising on the additional Viability Assessment material published on 5 March.  (para 3.8 deals specifically to Elsenham) A Briefing Note to members of the committee from Melanie Jones, the Chief Planning Officer for U.D.C can be viewed by clicking here.

Please see above for a review of the meeting by Nick Baker, Chairman of the J.P.C.S.G

Communities Against Ford Eco-ton (CAFE)

Dear all

Well, we are nearly at the end of another consultation and I have to thank all those who helped organise the response, and of course those who replied. We feel that our consultants reports drew out the main issues very well, and our responses will reflect not only our strong feelings against this development, but also articulate the reasons why we object in a very clear manner.

I say at the end of another consultation because at the last minute the Government decided to extent the deadline for replies until the 30th April. This cavalier approach to dates is extremely unhelpful, and doesn't take into account the enormous amount of work that goes into responding to a consultation like this. To tell us one week before the end of the consultation that we have another two months to reply is frankly disgraceful. We want an end to this ridiculous eco-town proposition and to continually move dates backwards bears no thought for people who are blighted whilst this process creaks onwards.

On a brighter note, Essex County Council has lodged a strong ‘no’ to the eco-town at Elsenham. I heard today (4^th) that Bishops Stortford Town Council have also lodged strong objections. We have not heard the Uttlesford response, but we are pressing them to make their eco-town objections known to Government and to publish their paper so we can all see what they say.

So, what's next?  Well, the Government, at the end of this consultation, will publish a short list of possible eco-town sites which will go forward to the next stage which will bring them into the planning processes. I hope that our strong objections, together with any independent Government appraisal of Fairfield’s plans, will mean that we are not on this short list.

Nick Baker - Chairman J.P.C.S.G

Extension to Deadline for DCLG Consultation

Dear all

Please see blow a copy of the email from the DCLG regarding their decision to extend the deadline for submissions to their consultation until 30th April 2009.

On behalf of the Joint Parishes Steering Group I would like to extend our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to all who have submitted responses thus far.  Don Sturgeon will be making a special trip to the DCLG offices this week with sizable and ever growing bundle of your letters.  A special thanks must also go to our canvassers who have been working tirelessly over the past two weeks to deliver the packs to the villagers of Elsenham and Henham and to collect your responses.  A great effort by all. 

May I also say a further special thanks to our neighbouring village of Widdington from whom we had over seventy submissions of support.

For those of you who have not yet managed to respond you have now have more time to do so. 

I am sorry for those who, whilst in the process of filling in the DCLG on-line form, found that their system crashed on them, sometimes at the very point of submitting the form.  Very frustrating.

Yours

Copy of email from DCLG

Thank you for your submission to the first stage of eco-towns consultation.

Following the release of the full written judgment of recent legal proceedings, the consultation on the draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) and Sustainability Appraisal on eco-towns has now been extended to Thursday 30 April.

We would be very grateful if you could alert any relevant members of your organisation to this deadline extension and look forward to receiving any submissions by this date.

Copies of the relevant documents are available from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingsupply/ecotowns/

Paper copies can be ordered by calling: 0300 123 1124

The official consultation form can be found at:
http://ecotownssurvey.communities.gov.uk/home/

 Submissions can be made to:

ecotowns@communities.gsi.gov.uk
 
Eco-towns Team, 2/H9, Eland House, Bressenden Place, Victoria, London SW1E 5DU 

We also plan to publish a financial viability study on prospective eco-town locations (prepared by external advisers for CLG) next week which people may want to draw on when submitting their consultation responses.

You can keep up to date with eco-town news by signing up for the e-newsletter, follow the process here: http://haveyoursay.communities.gov.uk/newsletters/default.aspx

Kind regards,

The eco-towns team

Please click here to go to the consultation page which gives all the information. It is essential than you make your feelings known.

See a repeat of BBC Look East report (Monday 10th) on Marston Vale in Bedfordshire and an Eco-town in Sweden built on a brown-field site
Click Here

Eco-towns are also a subject in the Politics Show at 12 noon BBC 1 this coming Sunday

You may have see that another eco-town has been 'pulled up' by the developer in the Grand National Eco-Town Stakes, viz. Marston Vale, in Bedfordshire. That was a 20,000 homes development and no doubt very good news for them but perhaps not so good for us. We need to keep the pressure on.

In a letter to Nick Baker dated 6th February, Sir Alan Haselhurst M.P told us that he had what he believed to be a 'useful meeting' with Margaret Beckett concerning the proposed eco-town at Elsenham. He said,

"I placed particular emphasis on the necessary supportive transport infrastructure, but I was also able to draw on your consultants' report.   I also took the opportunity to stress the general unsuitability of a District such as Uttlesford to accommodate the total number of houses which now seem to be in the pipeline under one heading or another. Apart from the extra homes for which planning provision has already been made before the LDF target was increased, I told her that Uttlesford's housing needs would be better catered for by low cost social housing additions such as we have already seen in many of our villages."

The Minister reiterated that she was not committed to any set number of eco-towns and those which are allowed to go forward would have to meet the most exacting standards.

Middle Quinton Judicial Review

You may have read in the paper that one of the eco town sites lost a judicial review in the High Court on Tuesday.  Be assured that we have been monitoring this situation closely. Although the decision was a disappointment it was about the process of the initial consultations by the Government on eco towns, and not about the locations etc.  If the decision had been the other way it would have meant that the Government would have had to start the consultation all over again leading to major delays in any decisions.  I don't think it has too much impact on our campaign which is all about Elsenham being a wrong development in the wrong place.'

It struck me the other day that our campaign can be likened to a steeplechase devised on similar lines to that which might appear in a sequel to Alice in Wonderland, namely, The Grand National Eco-town Stakes. Our horse, called North-East Elsenham, is owned by the Fairfield Partnership.  It was sired by a horse bred by David Lock Associates out of a mare of suspect pedigree called Option 4, (owned by Uttlesford District Council).  This race is of indeterminate length and nobody is quite sure where the finishing line is.  Fences keep being erected as the race goes on and our money is firmly on North-East Elsenham not being placed or hopefully falling well before the end.

Over the last year, particularly in the early stages of the race we saw a Foinavon type of incident (Grand National 1967) when many horses fell at the same fence.  The race continued and three more horses, notably one called Hanley Grange, were pulled up by their jockeys.  There are now 12 runners left.  Currently, the owners of one of the horses, Middle Quinton, has called for a Stewards Enquiry, (known in this race as a Judicial Review), which if successful may result in the race being stopped and either abandoned or started again.  We cannot rely on this however. (latest see above)

We are approaching a crucial stage in the race in March when the race organisers, the Department of Communities and Local Government, sponsored by Gordon Brown and  Associates, will themselves make a judgement on the names of horses to continue.  We are not sure how many they will decide on but bad weather, (economic climate change), has made the going decidedly heavy.

It is therefore very important that we keep up the pressure on the D.C.L.G. to convince them that North East Elsenham is totally unfit to continue.  On 4th November 2008 they issued yet another version of the set of rules regarding fitness of horses for the latter stages of the race called the Draft Planning Policy Statement - Eco-towns Consultation, abbreviated as  'PPS' which you can see by clicking here. This report contains a number of questions about the concept of the The Grand National Eco-town Stakes and about the condition of the remaining horses.  They have given 'the connections' until 6th March 2009 to respond to their questions.  Yes, you've got it, they call it a 'public consultation', a term we have heard before somewhere. 

We, the punters, who have placed a considerable amount on North East Elsenham to lose, have commissioned two reports from independent vets called Hives Planning and Stuart Michael Associates.  These reports categorically say that our horse is unfit to continue and should really not have started in the first place. In a nutshell they say:-

At this stage in the race we are going to ask for your help once more.  With the aid of the vets reports we are going to ask you to give the D.C.L.G your views as before.  Currently we are preparing information packs for each household in Elsenham and Henham which will explain in detail what we are going to ask you to do.  Additionally, as before, we are going to hold public meetings in both villages, probably in the second week in February. (see above).

The J.P.C.S.G is keenly aware that you may be suffering from 'consultation overload' but we see no other way.  The race organisers set the rules but we cannot ignore them and hope they will go away.

We have decided to make the vets reports public and are in the process of giving Uttlesford District Council (the owners of Option 4) a copy to assist them when making their response to the D.C.L.G.  To view them please click on the respective names, i.e. Hives Planning and Stuart Michael Associates. 

Please remember these reports are subject to copyright.

What a silly race this is!

BB

The  Uttlesford District Council Environment Committee Meeting

 Held at 7.30pm on Tuesday 20th January 2009 at the Council Chambers.

Prior to the meeting, Nick Baker the Chairman of the J.P.C.S.G was given leave to address the Councillors.  A full transcript can be seen by clicking here. 

He explained that whilst the relationship between the J.P.C.S.G and the Environment Committee had never been close, we were willing to share the contents of the two independent reports commissioned by the campaign against the proposed Eco-town. 

He stated that the reports confirmed that the governments proposal for an Eco-town in north east Elsenham was fundamentally flawed.  He urged the Committee to consider the reports when replying to the current D.C.L.G consultation which ends on 6th March.

The meeting commenced and Item 7 on the Agenda was:-Local Development Scheme - Item for decision, viz-

"This report recommends a revised programme for the preparation of the Local Development Framework, and that the Committee recommends the Scheme to the Full Council".
(It has some 21 pages and can be viewed by clicking here.) 

Roger Harborough outlined new timetables for the LDS (Local Development Scheme). The presentation was confusing and few members of the public, if any, left the meeting with a clear comprehension of exactly what was happening.

It seems that the Stansted Airport G2 enquiry has some bearing on the timetable as the housing and road infrastructure requires an understanding of whether we are to get a second runway. Additionally, the various technical studies are still awaited and these will determine whether development plans are sound.

So where does that leave us. It seems that in September 2009 there will be further public consultation on options for Stansted Airport and housing distribution. In April 2010 the Core Strategy will be published. From November 2010 there will be public examination of the Core Strategy leading to Adoption in October 2011. Meanwhile, running alongside the Core Strategy are the Development Control Policies which involve public participation on preferred options for specific development sites. This starts in 2011 and finalises in 2013.
It appears that we have considerable slippage in the timetable. The Stansted enquiry may not start until September 2009 and is likely to last 20 months. This could disrupt the timetable further. Meanwhile other housing plans are emerging including a 20,000 'New Town' in the Little Canfield area. What this all means is we have a long campaign which will constantly change as new plans are submitted.

In response to a question from Councillor David Morson, Mr Harborough reported that a final decision on whether Option 4 would go ahead or be abandoned would be taken in May 2010 following new reports on site location, drainage and transport. Cllr. Morson asked for clarification on what would be the criteria for coming to this decision, given that a Preferred Option had already been identified in September 2007. Was it going to be the case that the results of the new, subsequent surveys would either vindicate or remove this choice which has already been made?  Mr.Harborough's response was that this would partly be the case. When Cllr Morson further asked what then would be the other components of the decision, Mr. Harborough replied the ‘consultations which have already been done’.

"Fierce opposition forces Brown to shorten eco-towns shortlist"

Government eco-town proposals receive fresh blow

"The Government's flagship eco-town strategy has suffered another damaging blow after an independent report said one of the proposed towns was "unworkable".

Henham Dads Christmas Disco in aid of the Save Our Village Fund.

I am pleased to announce that the Disco at the Village Hall on 20th December raised a princely £500 to boost the funds of the Save Our Village campaign.  Steve Inkley said, "The highlight of the evening was a Disco dancing competition between six Henham Dads that was comfortably won by Scott Robertson. Give the man a white suit and he will be available for the remake of Saturday night Fever."

Nick Baker, chairman of the Joint Parish Council Steering Group said, "On behalf of the J.P.C.S.G our thanks go to the organisers and all who attended.  It is a magnificent sum that will be well used in our campaign."

Thank you for your submission to the first stage of eco-towns consultation.

You may or may not be aware that a judicial review has been granted to opponents of the Middle Quinton scheme near Stratford and that the Court has now listed this for hearing on 22 and 23 January 2009. In line with commitments which she has made to the claimants and to other interested parties in the case, the Secretary of State has decided to extend the deadline for responses on the draft Planning Policy Statement and the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal on Eco-Towns from 19th February 2009 to 6th March 2009. This effectively allows an additional two weeks for people to respond to the current round of consultation.
We would be very grateful if you could alert any relevant members of your organisation to this deadline extension and look forward to receiving any submissions by this date.

Copies of the relevant documents are available from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingsupply/ecotowns/

The official consultation form can be found at:
http://ecotownssurvey.communities.gov.uk/home/

Submissions can be made to:

ecotowns@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Eco-towns Team 2/H9 Eland House Bressenden Place Victoria London SW1E 5DU

Kind regards and best wishes for the Christmas period,

The eco-towns team

Click here to read

Since this meeting, many complaints have been received about the manner in which it was conducted.  A selection of these have been placed on The Blackboard on this site.  These and more have been sent to Mr. John Mitchell, the C.E.O. of the U.D.C. Mr. Mitchell has responded with an investigation and adjudication on the matter.  This can be viewed by clicking here.  For those who attended the meeting, I leave you to draw your own conclusions and will no doubt be hearing from you. - BB

How did we get in this mess?

Please take time to read the Communities and Local Government Department's Eco-towns Sustainability Appraisal for North East Elsenham, a document prepared by Scott Wilson Ltd.  It is a long-winded title, but the report is relatively easy to digest and in my opinion worth printing off if you can, (45 pages).   Download it by clicking here. Draw your own conclusions on the responsibility that must be shouldered by the U.D.C. in relation to their preferred option 4.

Uttlesford District Council Environment Committee Meeting
Tuesday 18th November at 7.30pm. (Agenda)

(Read what the Herts and Essex Observer said click here for page one and here for page two) -

Villagers from Elsenham and Henham were once again out in force to attend yet another meeting of the Environment Committee.  On behalf of the Joint Parish Council Steering Group may I thank all who attended only to come away again with mixed feelings of anger, confusion, disbelief, puzzlement, sadness and above all frustration.  As we left the Council Chamber one resident said, "and how are you going to sum that lot up for the web site." How indeed, well here goes!

Cllr. David Morson, District started the proceedings with a question once again relating to how the preferred option 4, on which the subsequent Eco-town proposal was based could have been introduced last year without prior technical studies.  Once again Cllr. Barker failed to give a convincing reason stating that a preferred option had to be put forward and that it was a 'chicken and egg' situation and Roger Harborough stating that the Consultation had raised many issues which necessitated further studies.

Two local speakers then addressed the meeting.

The first was Mrs. Gail Phillips who introduced herself as a school teacher from Old Mead Lane and area surrounded by beautiful countryside.  She spoke scathingly on the way that Fairfield had conducted their presentations.  She criticized the lack of detail, especially in relation to where the proposed houses would be placed, (shown as green on the map), the lack of opportunity to study the various display panels.  Click here to view her speech. At the conclusion Cllr. Barker stated she also had not been impressed by Fairfield's efforts.

Mrs. Sheena Bigland from Henham then gave a passionate speech in defence of our countryside and I will not attempt to précis it. Please click here for the full text which I urge you to read.

Items 7 and 8 on the agenda were of importance to our campaign.

During this item, the frustration from the residents present increased more and more, fuelled by the perceived evasive attitude of the committee members. 

Cllr Morson, said, "How can the Council publicly oppose the Eco Town Proposal for Elsenham and use planning arguments against it, when these same arguments could be levelled against their own Preferred Option 4 at Elsenham."

A number of referrals were made to the Chief Planning Officer, Roger Harborough and the answers received left me more than confused. It would appear that the council will not be in a position to make any sort of decision until well into 2009.  The schedule for receiving the technical studies was very vague and Mr Harborough intimated that these studies would also have to be consulted on.

As a result of Stage 2 of the Department of Communities and Local Government Eco-town Consultation which runs from 4th November until 19th February 2009 we are going to ask you for your involvement. We intend to place all the relevant documents in the hands of our planning adviser and will be reporting back to you at the earliest opportunity on the way forward and how we as a community can best tackle this stage of the campaign.  In the meantime if you attended the meeting and wish to comment, particularly on anything I have missed, please send then to me via saveourvillage@live.co.uk for posting on The Blackboard.

From what was on display, shoppers from Bishops Stortford will have no idea of the negative impact that the proposed eco-town will have on them and the surrounding area.  Indeed, the purpose of the road show was not to go into detail on individual projects and the young lady I spoke to had not visited the Elsenham site.

These road shows are part of the D.C.L.G  second stage of consultation which started on 4th November and will continue until 19th February 09.  They seek views on the following publications:-

1. Draft Planning Policy Statement: Eco-towns -  Consultation

2. Eco-towns: Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Draft Eco-towns Planning Policy Statement

3. Impact Assessment - Planning Policy Statement (PPS): Eco-towns - Consultation

4. Eco-towns: living a greener future - Summary of consultation responses

In relation to 2. above -

Simon Lee spoke next and stated that we had a long haul in front of us and that we needed substantial funds if we were to get the best advice from our legal and technical advisors.  He stressed the need for community involvement in fund raising and other aspects of the campaign.  The Working Party and the Joint Parishes Steering Group could not do it all and needed to concentrate on convincing government that the Elsenham option was totally flawed.

Don Sturgeon then spoke about the way that our campaign had been conducted over the past year and summarised the many meetings we had had with ministers, MP's, Government officials, etc.  He also talked about the invaluable advice we had received from our retained experts and the support of Essex County Council.  He stated that he and Petrina were meeting again with Henry Cleary of the DCLG.  He talked about the forthcoming presentations at Bishops Stortford and Saffron Walden (see below) and stressed that as many people as possible should attend and give their constructive views.  He said that Bishop Stortford and Stansted residents  were yet to fully understand the impact that an eco-town at Elsenham would have on them. 

Should you wish to do so they have supplied PDF downloads of each, viz.
Panel 1 - Panel 2 - Panel 3

Further downloads of many of their documents can be obtained by going to their site - click here should you wish to do so.

I attended the Henham Presentation and I tried initially to put myself in the position of someone living outside the affected area.  Superficially, (and this is how it must also appear to Ministers, M.P.'s, Government Departments, etc.) the idea of an Eco Market Town must be appealing.  The presenters were very pleasant and rehearsed in their explanations of the information on display.

In spite of the fact that the Henham presentation was only between 11.00am and 4.00pm (when they had the hall booked from 9.00am and 6.00pm and they could have hired it for much longer should they have so wished) it was very well attended by those residents who were available during the day time.

It was only when I started to listen to the responses to specific and penetrating questions that it quickly became apparent how little substance there was to the various topics raised.  In fact, considering the time Fairfield and their associates have have had to develop this scheme it was appalling.  Time and time again the presenters were unable to give satisfactory explanations on major and fundamental issues and the mood in the hall was of incredulous disbelief and seething anger.  I am led to believe that the same occurred at Elsenham presentation later in the evening.  A 'total farce' was an opinion widely held.

In spite of this Fairfield seem confident that they will win the day and that a development of either 3000 houses (option 4) or the bigger eco-town project will be successful.  I wonder where they get their confidence from.  What is it we don't know?

The bottom line remains that Uttlesford District Council hold the key. 

Fairfield say they are in the process of 'Consulting,' (a word I have grown to hate over the last year), so see the comments form at the back of the flyer you received through your door entitled 'Your Views Count'.  However, we are unaware how your comments are to be evaluated.

Please fill this in carefully with your views and send it off to them. There is also a feedback form on their website.  Additionally, you may have picked up a Consultation Questionnaire at one of the presentations.  Before filling this in please read it very carefully. I feel this is is 'loaded/biased' and has an overriding assumption that the reader is in favour of either option 4 or the eco-town.

One of the presenters stated that Fairfield will answer questions about the project if you write to them.  Personally I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Click here for the Freepost address which you can print off, viz. Ron Gibbons, David Lock Associates, Elsenham Consultation, 7 Bayley Street, London WC1 3HB.

Yet again you might find you wish to send an email to our new Housing Minister, the Rt. Hon. Margaret Becket MP via margaret.beckett@communities.gsi.gov.uk 

If you have any comments you wish to make I am thinking of starting a 'blackboard' of such views.  Please send then to me via saveourvillage@live.co.uk. 

In the meantime I have already received a very good letter which Jonathan Leech, a regular contributor to this site has sent off to the Consultation, (Click here to view) and one from Trevor Ellis-Callow sent to Henry Cleary of the Dept. of Communities and Local Government. (Click here to view)

BB

Sir Alan Haselhurst
MP for Saffron Walden gives his latest views

See the article in the Herts and Essex Observer

The Sunday Telegraph of 8^th September 2008 reports –

 ‘A housing Charity has admitted that it was paid £100,000 by the government to produce a series of 13 information leaflets setting out the case for Gordon Brown's controversial eco-towns scheme
Called Eco-town - the facts, the 20 page leaflets are branded with the Shelter logo and focus largely on the need for more affordable housing, with only one paragraph addressing such concerns as traffic levels, flood risks and pressure on public services'
  How fair is that!  Very strange - Should such a charity be sponsored for Government purposes such as this?

Click here to view the article on the Department of Communities and Local Government Website

Where does this leave Uttlesford District Council and their decision about the Local Government Framework and Option 4 in particular? 

Nick Baker says

"The J.P.C.S.G. are convinced that the U.D.C. consultation should be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.  We know that U.D.C. will publish the results of the consultation for discussion at the Environment Committee on the 16th September 2008.  We are also aware that the consultation shows overwhelming opposition to Option 4, as well as considerable opposition to Options 2 and 3. The J.P.C.S.G. strongly believe that the adoption of Option 4 as the 'preferred option' by U.D.C, led to the 'Developer led' proposal for an Eco-town on the same site. Without Option 4 being the 'preferred option’ in the consultation I doubt the proposed Eco-town would have been considered. We do understand that the consultation should run it's course to stand up to scrutiny, but given that we were forced to hold it over Christmas and the New Year because of the extreme urgency, it seems ironic that we are now in August without further advancement.

 U.D.C. continue to deny the link between Option 4 and the Eco-town I cannot understand this thinking and we now head for a decision on the Eco-town and Option 4 in the same time frame, early 2009.

 The J.P.C.S.G. would like to take the perceived preference for Option 4 off the table for good, by fairly appraising the consultation results.  We still don't know whether the Eco-town proposal for 5000 houses is in addition to the 4200 extra homes under the Regional Spatial Strategy, indeed their is little encouragement from Government that this is the case.

This land would make a lot of loaves of bread; just see for yourself.

 1 Square mile of proposed arable land equals 640 acres

 At say 4 tonnes per acre, that equals 2560 tonnes of grain

 Take a small to medium loaf of 800 grams. A loaf consists of quite a lot of water and other ingredients, but let’s assume for this calculation that 70% of a loaf is wheat, therefore 560 grams of every loaf is wheat.

 2560 tonnes X 1000 = 2,560,000 kilograms x 1000 = 2,560,000,000 grams

Divided this by 560 grams per loaf = 4,571,428 loaves lost to concrete.

Yes 4 ½ million loaves lost per year forever.

With the approval of the J.P.S.G. Chris and I made additional copies of your letters.  Whilst we recognise that we have not received copies from every one, on the morning of the last day of the consultation we had well over a thousand plus a hundred or more from outside our villages.  Every one condemned the plan to build the eco-town.  Additionally, we felt that because this plan had been devised on the back of the notorious 'Preferred Option Four' we decided that the D.C.L.G. should have copies of the letters you sent in to the Uttlesford Consultation earlier this year as well.  These we had bound into 32 spiral backed volumes.  In total between the two consultations well over two thousand letters.

Of the meeting, Don said,

Firstly, may we thank all who wrote letters, came to London, donated money (we have had a great response from the latest membership scheme) prepared posters and banners and a special thanks to Gary Willis at Millways for providing the binders, paper and printing facilities for the letter copying, Ken Forbes for spiral binding our option4 letters and Jonathon Leech and Margaret Shaw for contributing pictures.

Click here to view a damning report

The following is taken from the Daily Telegraph book, ' People Power' where a passage from The New Statesman 2004 is quoted:

E-Petition

Please visit the on-line petition to 10 Downing Street, viz:-

'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abandon plans to build an Eco Town in Elsenham & Henham.'

which you can find by going to:-

 Abandon plans to build an Eco Town in Elsenham & Henham

Please forward this to all your friends and family so they can sign up as well