This week, yesterday in particular, has shown up Uttlesford DC at its worst. The Saffron Walden Reporter/Dunmow Broadcast and the Herts & Essex Observer both published accounts of two proposed new settlements along the A120 between Stansted Airport and Braintree. The Observer’s account in the print version was much more detailed, as I reported yesterday.

I (and other councillors) received a partial explanation yesterday about what went wrong, but it doesn’t excuse the fact that (many, but not all) Members were kept in the dark for three days about the situation.

On Monday morning three officers and a councillor, Susan Barker, briefed three reporters from local newspapers about a proposal for two new settlements, aka Garden Villages, west and east of Great Dunmow. Later on Monday an email was received from Braintree District Council raising concerns about what Uttlesford might be saying about the plan that originated from Braintree for one of the new settlements to straddle the Uttlesford/Braintree boundary around Andrewsfield airfield. The council has also heard from its own consultants that there are parts of the draft plan that might not pass scrutiny by the national Planning Inspectorate. I still have no details, but officers felt these issues are important enough to “pause the process”.

So there will be no public release of the draft plan this side of the New Year and no public consultation on it until sometime early in 2017.

I remain critical of leading councillors and officers for not telling all members of the council what was going on before the story – which the council attempted unsuccessfully to suppress – appeared in yesterday’s newspapers.

We now have the disgraceful situation in which the public has been fed titbits that will cause enormous concern along the A120 corridor in existing towns and villages. The public has been given no rationale or supporting evidence for the planning officers’ draft – and I emphasis DRAFT – proposals which have NOT been agreed by councillors.

I have been writing repeatedly to officers for weeks challenging their assumptions and asking for evidence. I am not satisfied that two new settlements are being put forward in the south of the district around Great Dunmow, but none has been proposed in the north of the district, where there is a developer’s proposal for a new settlement alongside the A11 at Great Chesterford. I am still waiting for a response with evidence to demonstrate whether an even-handed approach is being taken between north and south Uttlesford.

I have challenged officers to counter with hard evidence information I have received that the demand for housing in the north of the district is higher than in the south because of economic growth in the Cambridge area; The Cambridge Phenomenon. In which case, why would we build most new homes in Uttlesford as far away from there as is possible? I am waiting for response, so this delay is a good thing.

Pity its been so mishandled! I apologise for not being able to sort this out earlier. I have tried, but others have been unwilling to listen.