The Story So Far - and What Happens Next
How our community fought the applications to refusal - and the one stage still to watch
FIRST CONSULTATION
Completed
- Initial 1,050-home proposal
- Strong community opposition
- Developer revises plans
SECOND CONSULTATION
Completed
- Revised 480-home proposal
- 111 residents attended exhibition
- 203 responses received
- Closed October 2, 2025
PLANNING APPLICATION
Completed
- TWO applications submitted (Birchanger & Stansted)
- Public consultation held
- Hundreds of community objections submitted
LOCAL PLAN ADOPTION
Completed
- Local Plan 2021-2041 adopted
- Keeps Green Belt boundaries intact
- Birchanger identified as not appropriate for housing allocations
- Housing targets met without building on Green Belt
PLANNING DECISION
✅ REFUSED - UNANIMOUS
- Both applications refused unanimously
- Committee backed by adopted Local Plan policies
- Written decision notice awaited
CALLED IN BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
✅ Completed
- Both applications called in for a public inquiry
- Council's unanimous refusal preserved as its case, but never issued as a decision notice
- Case examined afresh, decided in Whitehall instead of by the council
PUBLIC INQUIRY PREPARATION
🔴 NOW ACTIVE
- Inquiry expected late 2026, more likely early 2027
- Rule 6 party forming with both parish councils - donate on GoFundMe
- Appeal comments open soon - details will be posted here and on Facebook
INSPECTOR'S REPORT & MINISTERIAL DECISION
Upcoming
- Inspector writes a report and recommendation after the inquiry
- The Minister makes the final decision
- Guarantees our evidence is heard and tested - not a particular outcome
One Development. Two Communities at Risk.
City & Country's proposed development of 480 homes (180 in Birchanger, 300 in Stansted) with claims of 50% "affordable" housing doesn't just threaten one community - it aims to obliterate the green buffer between Birchanger and Stansted Mountfitchet, merging them into continuous urban sprawl with Bishop's Stortford. The developer claims this meets NPPF Paragraph 155 "grey belt" criteria and the government's "Golden Rules" - but the evidence shows otherwise. Both parish councils and local groups have raised strong concerns about this devastating proposal.
What Both Communities Stand to Lose
Green Belt Protection
The land between our communities has been protected for decades. The new "grey belt" designation is being exploited to build on productive farmland that provides the vital green lung between settlements.
Distinct Identities
Birchanger and Stansted have existed as separate communities for over 1,000 years. This development would merge them into one continuous urban area, erasing centuries of history.
Infrastructure Collapse
Our roads are already congested, schools oversubscribed, and GP surgeries at capacity. Adding thousands more residents without infrastructure upgrades will create chaos.
Wildlife Corridors
The fields between our communities provide vital wildlife corridors and habitats. Development would sever these connections, threatening local biodiversity.
Flood Risk
Converting permeable farmland to concrete will increase surface water runoff, worsening flooding risks for existing residents in both communities.
Airport Proximity
Building thousands of homes near Stansted Airport ignores noise pollution and air quality concerns, while adding to already severe traffic problems.
We're not anti-housing.
We're anti-irresponsible development that destroys Green Belt land.
Protect our countryside. Protect our future.
Understanding the Developer's Strategy
The "Grey Belt" Strategy Explained
City & Country claims this site qualifies as "grey belt" under NPPF Paragraph 155 and meets the government's "Golden Rules" for development. Our job is to prove they're wrong:
- This land is NOT grey belt because it strongly serves Green Belt purposes: prevents coalescence between Birchanger, Stansted and Bishop's Stortford; safeguards countryside character; preserves historic setting of medieval villages
- Para 155 sustainability test FAILS - site is car-dependent with poor public transport (bus route 308 hourly Mon-Sat only, last bus 6:30pm, no Sunday service), 2.1km from Stansted station with no continuous footway, fails DfT 800m walkability standard
- Development would undermine remaining Green Belt across Uttlesford by creating dangerous precedent and contradicting the spatial strategy in the adopted Local Plan 2021-2041
- No demonstrable unmet need in Uttlesford - the adopted Local Plan 2021-2041 maintains Green Belt boundaries, has no allocation for this site, and identifies Birchanger as not an appropriate location for new housing
Grey belt mythbuster: "Grey belt" is not automatic permission. ALL four Para 155 tests must pass. If even one fails, it's inappropriate development in Green Belt requiring very special circumstances.
Golden Rules Reality Check
City & Country claims: 50% affordable housing, school expansion land, >20% biodiversity net gain, net zero carbon homes.
The reality: These "Golden Rules" must be viable, fully funded, legally secured via Section 106 agreements, and delivered BEFORE occupation - not vague promises. Where's the open-book viability assessment? Who pays for school buildings, not just land? How is 50% affordable housing economically deliverable? Are there binding triggers preventing occupation until infrastructure is built? Claims without enforceable legal commitments are meaningless.
Choose A Community
Each community faces unique threats. Select yours to learn more and take targeted action.
Save Birchanger
A historic village under siege. Birchanger's rural character, with its 12th-century church, ancient woodland, and tight-knit community of just 1,000 residents, faces complete transformation. This development would double our population overnight and destroy the green spaces that define our village identity.
Protect Birchanger →Save Stansted
A village's boundaries under threat. Stansted Mountfitchet's distinct identity as a historic village is at risk. The development would expand the village's footprint dramatically, overwhelming infrastructure already strained by airport traffic and removing the crucial green boundary with Bishop's Stortford.
Defend Stansted →United We Stand - Fund the Fight
The Secretary of State will hear this case at a public inquiry. Our residents' group aims to join Stansted and Birchanger Parish Councils in forming a Rule 6 party - putting expert witnesses and professional representation in the room. That costs money, and we need your help.
Donate to the Fighting Fund
Every pound goes towards the expert evidence and representation our Rule 6 case needs at the inquiry. Donate via our GoFundMe page - no amount is too small.
Comment on the Appeal
Once the Planning Inspectorate opens the case for comments, every resident can write in. Use your own words: what you personally know about the lanes, traffic, flooding and school run carries far more weight than anything emotional. We'll post the case officer's details and deadline here and on our Facebook group the moment they're ready.
Stay Vigilant
Both applications are now called in for a public inquiry. We'll post the inquiry timetable and case officer details here and on our Facebook group as soon as they're published - and you can sign up below for campaign updates too.
Join the Campaign
Connect with residents from both communities fighting to save our villages.
Spread Awareness
Share our campaign on social media and talk to neighbours about the threat.
Attend Meetings
Join parish council meetings and public consultations to make your voice heard.
Why Para 155 Tests Fail
This site cannot pass NPPF paragraph 155 requirements
🌿 Not Grey Belt
Strong Green Belt contribution
🚶 Not Sustainable
Car-dependent location
🗺️ Undermines Green Belt
Plan-wide harm
This Land is NOT Grey Belt
🏘️ Prevents Coalescence
Current gap: Only 1.2km separates Birchanger and Stansted Mountfitchet centres. Development would create continuous urban sprawl to Bishop's Stortford.
🏛️ Historic Setting
Heritage assets: Birchanger's 12th-century church, historic village core, and Stansted's village character rely on countryside setting.
🌾 Countryside Character
Agricultural land: Active farmland with hedgerows, mature trees, and traditional field patterns. Clear contribution to countryside character.
Site Fails Sustainability Test
🚶 Walking Distances
Stansted Mountfitchet station: 2.1km (26 min walk) via B1383 with no continuous footway, 6% gradient, unlit sections. Far exceeds DfT recommended 800m walkable distance for daily trips.
🚌 Public Transport
Bus service: Route 308 operates hourly Mon-Sat only, no Sunday service. Last bus 6:30pm. No evening connectivity to support sustainable commuting or social activities.
🛒 Local Services
Nearest shops: 1.8km to village centre via narrow lanes. No daily convenience retail within 800m walkable threshold. Residents will be car-dependent for basic needs.
🚗 Car Dependency
Transport reality: Site location forces reliance on private vehicles for work, shopping, healthcare, education. Cannot meet NPPF sustainability requirements for accessible locations.
🏥 Essential Services
Healthcare and education: GP surgery 2.3km away with limited capacity, primary schools at capacity. New residents would strain existing services without sustainable access.
🌙 Safety and Accessibility
Route conditions: Unlit country roads with no footways, dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, especially children, elderly and disabled residents.
Development Undermines Plan-Wide Green Belt
🗺️ Strategic Green Belt Function
M11 corridor: Site forms part of continuous Green Belt preventing Cambridge-London urban sprawl. Development here would breach strategic containment policy and encourage linear sprawl.
📋 Local Plan Inconsistency
Settlement hierarchy: UDC's adopted spatial strategy directs growth to larger, more sustainable settlements. This proposal contradicts the plan-led system and undermines strategic planning.
⚖️ Precedent Risk
Cumulative impact: Approval would establish dangerous precedent, encouraging similar speculative applications across Uttlesford's Green Belt boundary, fundamentally undermining protection.
🏞️ Landscape Integration
Regional context: Site contributes to wider Hertfordshire/Essex countryside character. Development would urbanize rural landscape and sever historic field patterns and ecological corridors.
🎯 Policy Conflict
Plan inconsistency: No allocation in the adopted Local Plan 2021-2041, which maintains Green Belt boundaries. Approval would have undermined the plan's evidence base and spatial strategy.
⚡ Infrastructure Impact
System stress: Development in unsustainable location increases pressure on infrastructure networks designed for existing settlements, creating systemic inefficiencies.
🔬 Transparent Methodology
Population: 480 homes × 2.47 persons/household (Census 2021) = 1,186 residents
Car trips: 1,186 residents × 363 car trips/person/year (NTS 2023) ÷ 365 = 1,180 daily trips
Car ownership: 1,186 residents × 0.6 cars/person (Uttlesford data) = 712 cars
CO₂ emissions: Annual car miles × UK Govt conversion factors (2024) = 1,520 tonnes/year
Water demand: 1,186 residents × 160 litres/day = 190,000 litres/day (0.19 million litres)
Contact the Birchanger & Stansted Green Belt Preservation Group
admin@saveourvillages.co.uk
For questions about the campaign or how to get involved.
📞 Phone
07368 501136
Call us to discuss concerns and find out how you can help.
Birchanger and Stansted Greenbelt Preservation
Follow us for updates and join the community discussion.
The Birchanger and Stansted Green Belt Preservation Group is an independent resident-run campaign.
Its aims are supported and endorsed by the Birchanger Residents Association and the Stansted Residents Association.