City & Country has urged the secretary of state to intervene after Uttlesford Planning Committee voted to refuse two major housing applications, despite recommendations for approval from planning officers.
Tim Sargeant, chairman of City & Country, described the decisions as “a fundamental misapplication of national planning policy that threatens the delivery of urgently needed homes”.
On 10 June 2026, Uttlesford Council resolved to refuse planning permission for the development of new housing across two residential schemes in Stansted Mountfitchet and Birchanger.
The applications were recommended for approval by Uttlesford’s planning officers, who found they complied with national planning policy. The sites had also previously been endorsed by an independent planning inspector as grey belt land suitable for development in principle.
The applications proposed the development of 480 new homes, 50% of which would be affordable, on grey belt land ideally served by public transport.
Plans for the Stansted scheme included a shop, café, nursery, care home and land allocated for a village hall. The Birchanger scheme proposed extensive new cycle and pedestrian links between the villages, alongside significant landscape enhancements designed to improve biodiversity and ensure the settlements remain separate.
The Planning Committee Report had previously stated: “The Council’s Principal Urban Design officer describes the scheme as exemplary and exceptional, noting that it represents a genuinely place-specific and landscape-led response.”
Tim Sargeant, chairman of City & Country, commented: “We are not simply challenging a planning decision; we are questioning whether the current system is capable of delivering the homes the country needs. We were extremely disappointed by the decision taken by Uttlesford Council’s planning committee, which undermines recommendations from its own planning officers who described the proposals as ‘exceptional’.”
“Despite extensive technical evidence and the clear recommendation of the council’s planning officers, the committee took an adverse stance on matters including Green Belt policy and housing need, failing even to mention the high-quality design and to properly evaluate and weigh the numerous other enhancements that these applications possess.”
“We believe the committee’s decision is inconsistent with both local evidence and national planning policy, particularly at a time when councils are being asked to play a central role in addressing the country’s acute housing shortage. Last year, Uttlesford delivered just 69 affordable homes; our proposals alone would more than triple that number. At a time when the UK continues to face a housing crisis, decisions such as this will only exacerbate the issue.”
“This case raises a wider question for the government. If schemes that comply with national policy, deliver significant affordable housing and receive officer support can still be refused, how will the country achieve its housing ambitions?”
“We have therefore asked the secretary of state to call in these applications for determination. We believe they raise issues of more than local importance, including the interpretation of recently introduced grey belt policy, the application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and the delivery of the government’s wider housing objectives. Greater clarity and consistency in the application of national planning policy is essential if the government is to deliver 1.5 million homes and ensure high-quality, sustainable communities are brought forward in the right locations.”
City & Country hopes to build a collection of one to six-bedroom homes, 50% of which will be deemed affordable through rent and affordable home ownership, exceeding the local authority requirement and helping to provide homes for the 1,400 households on the council’s housing waiting list.
The plans also comprise 15km of new and enhanced pedestrian and cycle links and a habitat bank with ecological enhancements. This includes a community orchard and the reinstatement of historic woodland and hedgerows lost over time. Under the current proposals, the developments will each achieve a Biodiversity Net Gain in excess of 20%.
