Stansted Mountfitchet – Uttlesford Local Plan

With a history spanning back to well before the Norman castle was built in 1066, Stansted Mountfitchet has remained relatively unchanged for 1,000 years.

In the last 20 years however it has seen itself at the centre of a huge house building boom.

2015 new Local Plan Context

After their draft Local Plan was rejected, Uttlesford District Council started a new Local Plan process in 2015. The start of the process included a ‘call for sites’. This asked all landowners and developers to come forward with land that they’d like to develop within the Local Plan period. In effect this means between now and 2033. There are a surplus of potential development sites across the district, so the council will consult and consider which ones it wishes to include as part of its Local Plan.

Development Sites Being Considered

Below are the possible new (2015) Local Plan sites in the village.

Stansted Local Plan

The Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council objected to key elements of the rejected 2014 Local Plan specifically Policy Areas 1 and 2 because of the loss of commercial land in the centre of the town.

More Information

Key Planning Applications for Stansted

See the Planning Applications section for all major planning applications.

Recent News

7 comments on “Stansted Mountfitchet – Uttlesford Local Plan
  1. Charlotte Young says:

    Taylor Wimpey are proposing 170 homes on a site on the edge of Bentfield Green conservation area – this is not a site that the parish council recommended for inclusion in the draft plan and indeed it is a sight they positively refused to include citing it as entirely unsuitable but what difference has it made? None. The developers attitude is that whilst there is no firm district plan and a government intiative to allow building wherever they can do whatever they like. Very scary.

  2. Janet Harris says:

    I agree with the Parish Councils opinion on the places to he developed. If smaller plots of land such as Elm Farm and Pines Hill could be developed at minimal impact to the community . It can absorb some the numbers needed. If other sites such these two could be found where feet rather than greater numbers can be built . Smaller developments are more acceptable to all! Bentfield/Taylor Wimpys 170 is an unacceptable number in a place that simply isn’t able to support that number of houses!

    • Dan Starr says:

      I think you’re right that Elms Farm seems a reasonable location to build. It is near the centre of the settlement and close to the station. But the developer would probably need to spend a lot on dealing with the flooding and waterlogging issues on that parcel of land though.

  3. Sarah Jordan says:

    I’m extremely concerned that if Taylor Wimpey and Bloor Homes get the go ahead, not only will Stansted Mountfitchet suffer the crippling effects of over development (our roads, schools and healthcare are already struggling to cope) but also the precedent will have been set and we leave ourselves open to more large scale developments. Building on Green belt land is not justifiable and we must make a stand. As far as the proposals for Elm Farm are concerned, I think that the development of flood plain is going to be expensive and problematic and the roads will be a huge problem given the ludicrous approval for the over sized flats and retail with healthcare facilities soon to be built close by; suddenly there will be a lot of traffic in an already congested part of our beautiful village. Small pockets of housing can be absorbed if they are done sympathetically and this is the approach Uttlesford should take.

    • Dan Starr says:

      The Wimpole and Bentfield sites will have the effect of stretching the village. Many new houses built at the northern extremities will create more car journeys both to the centre and through to Bishops Stortford. This is on top of the 1,000s of new car journeys being created by 1,000s of new homes in Saffron Walden and Newport all heading down to the motorway. The result: disruption, traffic congestion, emission pollution and misery for the existing residents of Stansted. The shires will be revolting in both ways. The problem is that there is too much power in the single-party UDC Cabinet that seems to be whipped by a central government house-building agenda and not listening to the needs and wishes of the people that they have been elected to represent. County Council elections are in May, and although county is not responsible for housing, it is time residents made their voices heard a little more aggressively. Each voter should find a candidate that they trust and that will support their views.

  4. thanks so much for putting this all up on your site – we really do appreciate your voice! these are very worrying times for Stansted Mountfitchet

    • Janet harris says:

      I find that reading other people’s comments has changed my view slightly. Especially on Elm Farm. If they build houses on the existing concreted space ( now a barn, outdoor arena. Hard standing for silage etc . Then the costs to the build will be reduced , also the number of houses and the numbers of cars exiting on to an already busy road, that will be that much worse when the health centre sandwich starts being built. The car parking there has still not been resolved. Much as it would be lovely to able to use the farmland for the village . If the ultimate cost is houses and traffic in the wrong place . Then it should not happen. The trouble is, something will go there. And if it is offices, will they be used. ? Heritage house at the top of chapel hill was offices . They never were occupied , and now they are flats. So next step a London borough buys them and terms into flats for their overflow. They are always buying up properties in new build sites , peace meal , as it is cheaper than London and having to find places to construct their own. The council does get to rent some i believe . But as Sarsh says if green belt gets built on in one place . And then Walpole Farm , and heaven forbid Bentfield which really is the wrong place . I can see that Stansted could become , in time, a new town with our lovely village at the centre. So we have to resist . Even if a few pockets of 10 gets and there get passed. More acceptable but, there had to be more in order to pay for x number of social houses. All very worrying. And with the ultimate prospect of 8,000 plus 2,200 over the border . I do not see anywhere in Uttlesford that I would be able to move to without the prospect of more houses going up on the doorstep. And what will be available , non new estate, will be very expensive!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Is where you live on the map?
Feature: Local Plan Sites


Sign up for our email updates, follow us on your favourite sites or help us out:

Subscribe to email updates Follow on Facebook Follow on Twitter Volunteer to help us

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

%d bloggers like this: