Save Church End sent its Infrastructure Growth Ledger to the Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP and asked why Uttlesford—and Great Dunmow in particular—has experienced substantial housing growth without matching investment in jobs, public transport, roads, schools, healthcare, water and wastewater capacity. We published her initial reply and our response so residents could read the exchange in full. On 17 September, Ms Badenoch agreed to send the ledger to Uttlesford and seek a substantive response on housing distribution, infrastructure delivered and outstanding, developer contributions, transport constraints and cumulative coordination. We have thanked her, asked for copies of the correspondence and Uttlesford's response, and supplied the new NHS evidence for consideration alongside the ledger.
Dear Mr Rolph,
Good morning, thank you for your email and for sending through the Infrastructure Growth Ledger prepared by Save Church End.
I would be willing to raise these concerns with the Government, but I do not think doing so on this occasion would produce a useful response.
National planning policy sets the overall framework within which councils must plan for housing, but it is for Uttlesford District Council, through its Local Plan and the decisions of its elected councillors, to determine where that housing growth should be accommodated within the district. The Government has not directed Uttlesford to concentrate development specifically around Great Dunmow.
There is also a separate difficulty with asking the Minister to comment on application UTT/26/1635/OP. From past experience, I know that the Minister will not comment on the merits of a specific live planning application because of the possibility that such a case could ultimately come before the Secretary of State.
For those reasons, although I would otherwise be happy to raise the matter, I fear the response would simply explain that the distribution of housing within Uttlesford and the determination of this application are matters for the local planning authority.
I therefore think the most effective use of the evidence you have compiled is to ensure it is formally submitted to Uttlesford District Council, both in relation to UTT/26/1635/OP and through the Local Plan process. I would also strongly encourage you to share the ledger directly with the councillors representing Great Dunmow and discuss its findings with them, as they are much better placed to ensure that the cumulative impact on infrastructure is properly considered as the Council takes these decisions.
In particular, the recent election of Cllr Will Church in Great Dunmow North gives residents another councillor who remains opposed to the Church End development and with whom I would encourage Save Church End to engage directly. I would make sure that he, and the other Great Dunmow councillors, have the evidence you have compiled and are aware of the specific infrastructure concerns you believe should be taken into account.
Thank you again for taking the time to compile such a detailed body of evidence and for keeping me informed.
Kind regards, Kemi Badenoch MP
Dear Ms Badenoch,
Thank you for your response. I must be honest that I found it very disappointing.
I understand the restriction on asking a minister to comment on the merits of a live planning application. However, that was not the central issue raised by the Infrastructure Growth Ledger.
The evidence raises a much broader constituency question. Uttlesford appears to have been among the areas delivering particularly substantial housing growth, yet it continues to be required to accommodate more and more homes without corresponding investment in employment, transport, healthcare, education, water, wastewater and other essential infrastructure.
Your response does not address that imbalance.
Great Dunmow has carried a particularly heavy share of Uttlesford’s growth. It has no railway station, limited bus services and an increasingly pressured road network. Many residents must travel elsewhere for employment, secondary education, hospital treatment and other essential services. Continuing to expand the town without delivering jobs and transport infrastructure risks turning it into an increasingly car-dependent dormitory settlement.
The strategic transport position is also deteriorating rather than improving. The Government cancelled the A12 Chelmsford-to-A120 widening scheme, while the long-promised major improvements to the A120 have still not been delivered or placed within a committed programme. This makes it even more difficult to understand how continuing large-scale housing growth can be treated as sustainable.
You confirm that the Government did not direct Uttlesford to concentrate development specifically around Great Dunmow. That makes the accountability question more important, not less. Why has Uttlesford chosen this distribution of housing, and why has the infrastructure required to support it not kept pace?
I am not asking you to determine UTT/26/1635/OP or to interfere improperly in the planning process. I am asking you, as our constituency MP, to help establish:
1. Why Uttlesford continues to face substantial additional housing requirements despite its exceptional recent rate of housing delivery.
2. Why such a large proportion of that growth has been concentrated in and around Great Dunmow.
3. What employment growth has accompanied the increase in housing and population.
4. Whether promised and funded infrastructure has actually been delivered.
5. Where developer contributions from completed developments have been spent.
6. Why further development is being considered before existing deficiencies have been resolved.
7. How additional car-dependent development can be justified when Great Dunmow has no railway station, limited bus provision and inadequate strategic road capacity.
8. Which public body will take responsibility for producing a proper cumulative assessment of housing, population, employment and infrastructure growth.
There are practical steps you could take without commenting on the merits of the live application. You could request a formal explanation from Uttlesford, raise the infrastructure and housing-growth imbalance with the relevant government departments, convene a meeting involving residents and councillors, and press the responsible infrastructure providers for an accountable delivery programme.
The ledger represents a considerable amount of work undertaken by residents because the responsible authorities do not appear to have assembled this evidence themselves. Simply referring us back to those authorities, without offering practical assistance or advice, does not address the problem.
We are not asking merely to be told which authority is responsible. We are asking our Member of Parliament to help hold those authorities to account.
Constituents reasonably expect their MP to engage when sustained development is placing visible pressure on their community. Electoral support cannot simply be assumed; it is earned through active representation when constituents genuinely need assistance.
Please reconsider your response and tell us what practical action you are prepared to take.
Kind regards, Carl Rolph, Save Church End