Home   News   Article

Safety of residents 'threatened' by Pines Hill and Stoney Common Road housing development plans in Stansted

More news, no ads


A scheme to build 31 homes on Green Belt land beside the main B1383 in Stansted has met with strong opposition from residents and the parish council.

Highways concerns in an already built-up and busy area were top of the list for those opposed to the Luxus Homes scheme on an overgrown site bordered by Pines Hill, Stoney Common Road and the London-Cambridge railway line.

“The highways issue is certainly a matter of life and death," resident Nick Miller told last week’s Stansted Parish Council meeting. "The safety of our residents is threatened by this application.”

Land east of Pines Hill and south of Stoney Common Road
Land east of Pines Hill and south of Stoney Common Road

Luxus has applied to planning authority Uttlesford District Council (UDC) seeking outline consent to develop the site, with access off the busy B1383 Cambridge Road.

The stretch of road is a notorious bottleneck. So far, almost 40 households have lodged comments with UDC as the community gears up to fend off the latest development threat.

The Luxus scheme comprises a mix of 19 three- and four-bedroom houses plus provision for 12 affordable homes.

The site plan shows how the 31 homes would be laid out (51882419)
The site plan shows how the 31 homes would be laid out (51882419)

Peter Biggs, of consultancy firm PJB Planning Ltd, spoke on behalf of Luxus at a meeting of the full parish council on Wednesday September 29.

He described the site as "one of the most sustainable in the village" and said the scheme was "less intensive" than previous applications. Also, the land had been identified as "moderate Green Belt".

But councillors disagreed, claiming there were no exceptional reasons why the Green Belt should be breached, even if it had been put forward as part of UDC's 'call for sites' exercise. It was "opportunistic development", they said.

In submitting its formal objections, the parish council cited concerns over highways access and pedestrian safety, claimed the site was unsustainable and outside of development limits, said there had been inadequate public consultation and that go-ahead for development would result in the loss of important woodland.

UDC will make the final decision on the application.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More