1.  SUMMARY OF OUR POSITION

  1.1  We support the responses of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Council for the Protection of Rural Essex.

  1.2  We do not consider that the proposals for large-scale housing development in or near Uttlesford are sustainable within the terms of the Government's own policies and guidance contained in PPG's 1, 3, 7 and 13. In particular, it would entail the destruction in perpetuity of large areas of countryside.

  1.3  We do not consider that the proposal for a large, effectively new, settlement in or near Uttlesford would be likely to reduce house prices in the south east of England or Uttlesford significantly nor that it would make a contribution to the sustainable solution of the problems of affordable housing for low-income households, especially those in the London area.

  1.4  We do not consider that there is a mechanism by which local planning authorities can ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing even for the needs of the local population. This is exacerbated by relatively high market prices in areas such as Uttlesford.

2.  THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN UTTLESFORD

  2.1  Uttlesford is the district council area within which Stansted Airport falls. It also forms part of the "Cambridge/Stansted corridor". It is geographically large, covering approximately 64,000ha, and situated some 40 miles to the north of London and 15 miles south of Cambridge.

  The population is relatively low, at something over 70,000. The largest settlement is Saffron Walden with a population of only 15,200. This is an attractive historic market town catering for the daily needs of surrounding residents but without, for example, large-scale retail or leisure facilities. The mediaeval street lay-out constrains development and leads to considerable traffic problems even at its current size. The only other settlements with any of the features of urban development are Great Dunmow (population 6,700) and Stansted Mountfitchet (5,750).1

  The remaining 60% of the district population is scattered thinly throughout 54 administrative parishes, many in isolated dwellings or small hamlets. Built development is similarly scattered: 40% of the district has a density of 25 buildings or lower per square mile.2 The district is therefore characterised by pleasant rolling countryside typically in agricultural use.

  2.2  While there is "space" within Uttlesford, it is countryside and valuable as a resource "for its own sake" (PPG7). Government planning advice and the Essex Structure Plan and Uttlesford District Plan rightly seek to protect this resource against unsuitable and unsustainable development. We consider that it is already developed to the limits of its capacity and that the proposed scale of housing development would be out of all proportion to existing population, settlements and infrastructure.

3.  AVAILABILITY OF SITES CONFORMING TO GOVERNMENT ADVICE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN PPGS 1, 3 AND 13

  3.1  The rural nature of the district and the small scale of its towns means that there is little brownfield land available for redevelopment. Such brownfield sites as do exist are generally small and widely scattered. Many do not "qualify" for residential development under PPG3 as they are agricultural and therefore specifically, and in our opinion rightly, excluded under Annex C.

  3.2  The total area of land in employment use in the two largest settlements, Saffron Walden and Great Dunmow, is 46.76ha with a further 17.36ha planned by 2011.3 Even if all this were redeveloped for housing at the highest density suggested in PPG3, there would only be the capacity for fewer than 4,000 units. This would, of course, entail the destruction of almost the entire local employment base, with all the consequences for traffic generation etc.

  3.3  Any large-scale development in Uttlesford would therefore have to take place on greenfield land in direct conflict with the Governments' advice in PPG's 3 and 7. It would undermine the aim of regenerating brownfield sites elsewhere in economically disadvantaged areas of the south east and London; increase long-distance commuting and destroy for ever a large area of open countryside.

  3.4  Apart from the M11 and main line rail services (see 5. below), public transport links within the district are poor, centred on the few larger settlements, with little choice of destination and almost no off-peak services. Furthermore, the rail line is "shared" with the Stansted Express service to the airport. It can probably be regarded as already running close to capacity in terms of points, crossings etc.

  The road network is dominated by minor routes which already suffer from rat-running and speeding.

  The district is not therefore a sustainable location in transport and access terms for large-scale development.

4.  HOUSING NEED IN UTTLESFORD

  4.1  Following Uttlesford District Council's urban capacity study, the revised deposit draft of the Uttlesford Local Plan (Oct. 2002) makes provision for some 4,620 dwellings over the period 2000-11, in line with Structure Plan requirements. Of these, some 70% are in urban extensions and two major settlement expansions. We consider that government advice has been properly followed as closely as possible given the scale of the requirement in a rural district with the constraints identified in 2 and 3 above.

  4.2  There is a very sizeable need identified by Uttlesford District Council for affordable housing within the district to meet local need: 2,880 units 2000-11, over 60% of the total housing allocation.

  New-build houses tend to be more expensive than those on the "secondhand" market and are therefore unlikely to meet the local affordable need in the District.4

  4.3  The commercial pressure on developers in an area of high market prices is to provide low-density "executive" homes. The planning system makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the local planning authority to ensure the provision of an adequate supply of affordable housing in such a district.

5.  ECONOMIC POSITION OF UTTLESFORD

  5.1  Uttlesford is a prosperous area. The 1991 census showed 55% of the population to be economically active. Unemployment is exceptionally low at 0.7%.5 Household incomes, car ownership etc are higher than average. There is already a "significant" level of out-commuting to work,6 primarily to London but also towards Cambridge, facilitated by the M11 and rail services on the Cambridge to London Liverpool Street main-line. There is no need for economic regeneration in the area.

  5.2  Distance from London, the cost of rail travel and poor off-peak services (journey time is around one hour and an annual second class season ticket costs over £3,000 from Audley End station, for example) will make the district unattractive to low-paid workers in the London area, especially those working outside 9 am to 5pm, even if affordable housing can be delivered.

  5.3  Increased use of the M11 for commuting would run counter to the Government's aims of reducing travel by private car (PPG13) and add to existing congestion problems in London and the south east.

  5.4  Stansted Airport is indirectly the district's largest employer. There is no evidence, however, that any constraints in the local housing market are restricting airport employers' ability to hire staff.7

6.  THE ROLE OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

  6.1  We believe that the district council is right to resist development pressure within the countryside; to seek to protect this resource for its own sake, and to contain residential development to the housing allocation figures within the constraints of urban capacity and Government advice.

  6.2  It is not possible within the existing planning structure to ensure delivery of the affordable housing already identified as needed by the local population. There is therefore a continued drift towards lower density, high priced private sector housing on such sites as are sustainable for residential development.

  6.3  We strongly believe that any proposed expansion must take full account of local considerations and concerns.

Gillian Williamson

18 November 2002