Skip to main content

Stop Easton Park


Deadline 5pm 11th September 2019

If you sent a comment to UDC on Easton Park in the Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation, you should have received a letter or email directly from the Local Plan Programme Officer (see the text of the letter at the bottom of this guide).

The new information refers to the Uttlesford Local Plan which includes 10,000 houses at Easton Park.  REPLIES GO DIRECTLY TO THE PROGRAMME OFFICER AND NOT UDC.

Numbered Examination Documents (EDs) include:

  • ED13 – Bus Rapid Transit System – needed to relieve traffic congestion from the new towns at Easton Park and West of Braintree. The route maps (p12-20) show that the proposals are anything but direct or rapid and include plans to divert all other peak time traffic off the B1256 Gt Dunmow bypass back through the town centre (p18-20) so that the bus to Easton Park runs on time!

  • ED17 – Hatfield Forest highlights the importance of protecting Hatfield Forest by providing alternative venues, notably Easton Park. 
  • ED27/27A – Infrastructure Delivery Plan – road improvements and other infrastructure they would provide to support the housing growth
  • ED52 – Statement of Common Ground between the Landsec (the developer) and Essex County Council.  Extract from the document: ‘The above analysis is agreed and confirms the position as set out in the IDP that no improvements are required to the A120 (save for upgrading of the A120/B1256 junction)’.
  • ED54 – Health impacts of building a new town so close to a major airport – noise and pollution.

This guide gives some suggestions on what you could say on ED13 and ED52, which are most relevant to traffic congestion in Great Dunmow and the surrounding villages How will this affect you?

What you can say

It is important to mention the new information document and if you use the points below, do so in your own words: 

  • How can they argue that a town of 10,000 houses between an expanding airport and major growth of Great Dunmow, will not need any work to improve the roads, other than a change to the A120/B1256 junction (and nothing at all before 2033)?
  • Essex County Council needs to provide a list of road improvements to relieve traffic congestion.
  • The developer must pay to solve traffic congestion on the A120 and local roads
  • In the public hearings, Essex County Council admitted that speeds on the A120 will reduce to 40-50mph but they have not done the work to identify the necessary road improvements – this is unacceptable.
  • Essex County Council must properly assess the road impacts now – they can’t just wait to see what happens.
  • We did not know that they can’t build Easton Park or West of Braintree without setting up a hugely expensive Bus Rapid Transit system?  
  • Landsec says that it will pay ‘reasonable costs’ but do not say what they think is reasonable
  • Bus Rapid Transit? The route maps use winding country lanes and expect to widen roads where there is no space
  • The bus transit system is done at the expense of the existing towns and villages.
  • It is unfair for only a small number of people to give their views.  We should have a full public consultation.


Good Morning,

As the Programme Officer for the Uttlesford District Local Plan Examination I am writing to you concerning a number of additional evidence documents which were submitted to the Examination of the Uttlesford Local Plan following the deadline for hearing statements.

The Inspectors consider that as these evidence documents are fundamental to the strategy of the Uttlesford Local Plan, all those who sent in representations at the Regulation 19 Stage  (when the Council invited comments on the submission draft of the  Local Plan)  should have the opportunity to comment on the documents.

The consultation is to enable representors to comment on issues of soundness which arise out of the additional documents.   The Inspectors have all the representations made at the Regulation 19 stage and the hearing statements submitted for the hearing sessions, so it is not necessary to re-iterate the comments that were made at either of these two stages.   Likewise, those representors who took part in the hearing sessions at Stage 1 and commented on the documents at the hearing sessions do not need to repeat the points made as the Inspectors have notes of the discussions which took place and the points raised.

The additional documents on which the Inspectors are inviting comments are detailed in the attached list and are available on the examination pages of the Uttlesford District Council website or via the link below:- .

Please send all representations electronically to or by post to PO Services, PO Box 10965, Sudbury, Suffolk Co10 3BF. The deadline for receipt of representations is 5.00 pm on Wednesday 11 September, 2019.  Hard copies are not required as well as electronic copies.

Kind regards,


Inspectors Louise Crosby & Elaine Worthington
c/o Louise St John Howe, Programme Officer
by email to:

Dear Inspectors,

Uttlesford Regulation 19 Pre-submission Local Plan

As my husband, has already informed you we did not receive the email inviting us to comment on the additional documents.  We both made representations on the pre-submission plan dated 7th August 2018. 

This lack of information has left me with little time to comment on the many pages of supplementary information, especially as I have other commitments between now and September 11th.  I also wonder how many others were not informed on August14th.  In any case surely this new information should be open to a Public Consultation and not just to those who commented before.

I have read the documents on which I would like to make the following comments:

ED54 Health Implications:  I live within a few miles of Stansted Airport and the effects of noise and atmospheric pollution, even with windows closed and secondary glazing are marked.

There is plenty of scientific data (see the excellent report by Jangu Banalvalu, Martin Peachey and Thomas Munzel) that confirms the harm to health by aviation noise and also atmospheric pollution.  With the further expansion of Stansted Airport, this will only increase.  Hence why would it be even be considered to build a New Town so close to a major airport, especially with the prevailing winds being SW?

ED13, ED27/27A and ED52

These proposals are going to cause unacceptable travel congestion in Great Dunmow and the surrounding villages and country lanes.  In addition it is highly likely that it will put a financial burden on the local people.  There is no breakdown of the costs and who should pay what.  A thorough analysis should have been done prior to Uttlesford proposing to build on Easton Park.  One remembers the stalemate between the developer and the Council with the finishing of the Dunmow bypass, which took years to complete the last (tiny) stretch.

Yours sincerely,