Site at Ash Tree Farm, Bishops Stortford Road, Roxwell – Planning Application 19/02123/OUT
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 3 NOVEMBER 2020 PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS Item 6 – Site at Ash Tree farm, Bishops Stortford Road, Roxwell – Planning Application 19/02123/OUT 1. Kenneth Smith – to be read out by the Democratic Services Officer Thank you for the email advising that the above application is to come before the Planning Committee on 3rd November 2020. The second paragraph of your advice note states “……….. the recommendation on the application is for refusal”. I’m staggered!!!!! Let me remind all you august members of the Planning Committee, Boyton Cross is a hamlet within the village of Roxwell less than 4 miles from the Chelmsford city centre. It has some 45 or so homes in it. One might consider it a rather rural ideal. However, one would not consider it part of the industrial heartland of the city! A planning application is before you to build a small housing development, surely a top priority for any council authority, which will include family homes, low cost housing and private amenity areas. Here you have a situation where the local community supports the development as something positive for us. You, in all your wisdom, are recommending the application be refused. However, if the Warren Farm development is anything to go by, when you generally get much opposition to development, you still “wave it through”. It beggars belief. Tell me, does Chelmsford now have enough housing? Or do you need the housing to go where it is not wanted? Or do you feel an active industrial estate is better suited for our community here in Boyton Cross? An industrial estate that includes an illegal tip of (supposed) aggregate (and who knows what materials?), the operators of which appear to behave above the law and who flout all enforcement notices presented to them. But, of course, there is serious money involved here isn’t there? Apparently, each truck that enters the site pays £200 to tip its load I understand!! Now, as the years have advanced, my level of cynicism has increased greatly and I can’t help wondering - Who profits from refusing this application for housing and allowing the site to continue in the despicable way that it has to date? Certainly, the operators of the processing plant, sticking two fingers up to authority and local residents! Is my cynicism misplaced putting the words “grease” and “palm” in the same sentence? Is it not time you considered the views of the community? Particularly where they support such a development of homes? If you choose to refuse the application then I trust there is a very compelling reason and one which I’m sure we’d all like to learn. I can see no logic in refusal except that you do not wish to get your hands dirty and sort out the fiasco that is Ash Tree Farm and the aggregate processing (Actually it is just accumulating into a bigger and bigger mountain)!! I don’t even know the name of the company operating there now; it keeps changing! It is not often I find myself supporting so avidly a development in my own community. And I hope that all members of the Committee read this before they sit down and make their decision. 2. Stuart Rowe, the agent for the applicant – to be put in person at the meeting The applicant is at a crossroads. He must either redevelop the site for residential purposes, or maximise its use as an industrial estate. There have been continuous complaints from neighbours about its industrial use and the applicant has therefore agreed to seek permission for its redevelopment. Leases have not been renewed during the course of the application and so a number of yards are presently empty. However, it is incorrect to suggest the site only contains a couple of businesses. Whilst occupancy is low at the moment if the site remains in employment use, it will rise again to its earlier level – 15 or so fully occupied units and yards. The development will result in a 36% reduction in vehicle movements including the elimination of all HGVs. Since it is these that cause significant harm to residential amenity, it is surprising that the report attributes very little weight to these benefits. The report implies that enforcement action will address complaints. This is not correct. The groundworkers yard is lawful and it is this that results in most of the vehicle movements and complaints. Whilst ceasing the unlawful soil tipping can be achieved, the wider use of the yard cannot. The proposal would not urbanise the countryside. This is not greenfield land but an industrial estate with large sheds, hardstandings and open storage. These are visible from beyond the site and result in harm to the countryside. A well-designed residential estate, with boundary landscaping would have less visual impact. The development would also improve habitat through provision of new planting and green spaces. The location is not isolated. There are at least 36 houses in this part of Roxwell, seven of which directly adjoin the industrial estate. The hamlet straddles the road and is a contiguous group of houses and industrial buildings inset from the countryside. A bus service running past the site operating daily between Chelmsford and Harlow on an almost a hourly basis, which provides an alternative to the car. The existing industrial uses result in much greater vehicle movements and an overall reduction in the carbon footprint of vehicle movements would result. I hope that members can agree that the benefits outweigh the harms in this particular case and might be minded to grant planning permission. 3. Edward Blacker – to be put in person at the meeting I have read the officers report and have to strongly disagree with many of the points made. I have lived in Boyton cross since 1990 and shortly after moving here the planning approval for the industrial estate was granted with very few conditions attached then in 2015 the groundworkers yard was approved. The company occupying this area had already created problems working without planning permission for the previous 2 years. With this permission the conditions applied were again very loose and allowed the company to work 7 days per week and any Bank holidays providing they were not loading or moving lorries. This has resulted in large excavators Dumpers, and even a concrete crusher working from 5.30am to late in the evening 6 Days and sometimes on Sunday and always on Bank holidays. The Company has illegally created Huge mounds of waste some 15Mtrs high. The Officers report mentions that the illegal activity will be dealt with by planning enforcement but we as a community have seen over the last six years numerous enforcement notices ignored or avoided by the company going into liquidation so that the whole process has to start again. Even if the enforcement notice is successful it will not stop the company being able to work unacceptable hours with noisy dust making machines. And as I stated earlier conditions in the 90s permission were poorly set out but one condition stopped vehicles from entering the site before 8 am this is often ignored, but on occasions lorries will wait in the entrance with engines running and radios on causing noise and vibration to the houses opposite. I note that the housing development according to the Officers report states that the development would be harmful to the intrinsic beauty of the countryside, anyone looking at the current site could only find this laughable. The groundworkers yard has permission for a 5mtr high Bund to surround the site which looks awful even at its lawful height. The green and landscaped areas included with the housing would be far better for the environment and wildlife which is an important consideration and the outlook for the residents would be greatly improved, with the massive benefit of no longer having up to 50 grab lorries per day visiting the site 6 days a week covering the road in mud. The officers report implies the site is isolated. I think the residents of the houses opposite and adjacent would disagree and as for the suggestion that access to the village is poor we have a very acceptable footpath to the rear of Dukes Manor. Housing within an already established community is far better than heavy industry and would benefit the local pub, shop and help to keep our school open. The provision for low cost housing could attract younger people to our village. I appreciate the need for employment in the countryside but just 50 yards from Ash tree Farm lies the entrance to Boyton Hall farm Industrial estate with a further 2 industrial estates within 2 miles. The building of the housing estate and its ongoing maintenance would employ far more people than the current estate could ever hope to, benefitting local builders gardeners landscapers window cleaners etc. 4. Jay Newman – to be put in person at the meeting As a brief introduction I am a 44 year old with a wife and 3 children, we moved to Boyton Cross in July 2009 (11 years ago) when our eldest child was 6 months old. The main purpose of moving to this Hamlet was for the outdoor space and surrounding countryside for our family to enjoy and provide a calming and relaxed environment for the children to grow up within. When we moved to Boyton Cross from central Chelmsford we were fully aware of the Ash Tree Business Park and at the time the Old Keys Pub/Restaurant. I must say that the change of use of the Old Keys Pub to residential has greatly improved Boyton Cross, whilst on the other hand the deterioration and total misuse of the Buildings and Land at Ash Tree Farm has caused me and my family environmental, noise and visual impact issues that should not have been allowed to happen.