PLANNING COMMITTEE – 3 NOVEMBER 2020

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS

Item 6 – Site at Ash Tree farm, Bishops Stortford Road, – 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 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. I have been in the Construction industry for 27 years and our business relies on good local businesses such as Groundwork companies, Window Suppliers and Scaffolding. Having these within the Hamlet is not an issue and we were aware when we moved here, but the aforementioned misuse of the buildings and land has become more than unacceptable. Again using the Old Cross Keys pub as an example the change to Residential Use can only improve the area. I see in the report (item 1.4) there are suggestions of the houses effecting the countryside; I invite you to visit the site now and see the fly tipping reaching c15 metres / 5 storeys high along with the continued noise and HGV traffic. There is also a note (item 1.5) regarding the reliance on private vehicles. I often travel to work via the local bus (number 59) and train into London, the bus stop is actually half way between our house and the proposed site so cannot see this as an issue. I am one of a significant number of local residents whom are experiencing noise, disturbance, dust etc. from the industrial estate as mentioned above and this development would bring an end to all of this unnecessary stress. The report implies that enforcement action will see the most troublesome user – the groundworker evicted from the estate and his use ceased. This is wrong. The enforcement action is only aimed at removal of spoil deposited to the north of the lawful groundworkers yard. However, it is the use of that yard that is fundamentally the source of our complaints. However, the yard has planning permission and so is lawful and will remain whatever the outcome of the enforcement notice. So, the vehicle movements into and out of the site will continue and the dust and noise and disturbance will continue too. The only way to deal with this is to allow the estate to be changed to residential, as has been allowed to the Old Cross Keys Pub. The Officer’s report to committee suggests that the site is isolated. It is not, it lies within a hamlet of 36 dwellings that lie either side of the road, with 7 dwellings directly abutting the industrial estate. As mentioned above the existing bus service (number 59) means that new residents can access Chelmsford and some facilities can be reached in the village on foot. The existing industrial use generates considerable volumes of traffic and the residential redevelopment would see this greatly reduced. This means that residential use would cause fewer vehicles and less harm to the environment. I understand that you are not our ward Councillor, but our ward councillor Mrs Chambers is trying hard to support her residents and needs other members of the committee to stand with her, as we understand she supports you on similar contentious applications in your own wards. I ask that you support this planning application as the medium to long term benefit to Boyton Cross and the local village of Roxwell favours you granting planning permission. This application would see vehicle movements, including HGVs considerably reduce, noise and disturbance reduce, the appearance of the countryside improve, ecology would increase, affordable homes and market homes would be delivered and local bus services and shops would be used more. These benefits outweigh the retention of the industrial estate and the unlawful current use of the same.

5. Laraine and Shaun Young – to be read out by the Democratic Services Officer

We are writing to confirm our support for this application of 55 houses with landscaping and green spaces.

The current site is not only unhealthy for local residents but also the surrounding flora and wildlife, it emits noise pollution and constantly emits dust, debris and air borne contaminates. This is not just a recent issue but has been ongoing since permission was granted in the 1990s. Stopping the ongoing waste and mounding to the site would be hugely advantageous to the local community e.g. Roxwell school, local shops, businesses and pubs, as well as flora and wildlife. It should also be noted that these issues are not just from activities taking place on the estate, but also from the HGVs that constantly enter and leave it from early morning until late evening. Also, the 1993/1994 planning conditions for the units does not stop vehicles from parking in the access way opposite residential homes with their engines running and radios on whilst waiting for the units to open. Although, the number of units occupied has reduced during this application process, it has been much higher in the recent past and will no doubt rise again if permission is refused. It’s also possible the owner could apply for more units here because it is a rural employment site. Therefore the committee is wrong to suggest there are only a couple of businesses here. There have been many more businesses in buildings and yards throughout the site before and will be again unless the entire use is eliminated. This site also contains a company who have been dumping material - some of which is potentially contaminated - for a number of years now and it has grown so considerably that it can be seen above the tree line! This is not only an eye sore but damaging to resident’s health and the local wildlife and flora, and is totally unacceptable. The Officer’s report implies that enforcement action will see this company evicted from the estate and his use ceased. However, this is wrong! The enforcement action is only aimed at removal of spoil deposited to the north of the companies’ yard. However, it is the use of that yard that is fundamentally the source of complaints and as the yard has planning permission, and so is lawful, it will remain whatever the outcome of the enforcement notice! So, the vehicle movements into and out of the site will continue as will the dust, noise and disturbances. The only way to deal with this is to allow the estate to be changed to residential. The Officer’s report to the committee also suggests that the site is isolated but this is not the case as it lies within a hamlet of 36 dwellings that lie either side of the road, with 7 dwellings directly abutting the industrial estate. The existing bus service means that new residents will be able to access Chelmsford and some facilities can be reached in the village on foot. The existing industrial use generates considerable volumes of traffic and the residential redevelopment would see this reduced by more than one third. This means that residential use would cause fewer vehicles and less harm to the environment. The Officer’s report also suggests that dwellings would harm the appearance of the countryside. However, a well-designed estate of new homes, with landscaping, would look far better than the existing industrial estate and the ever-increasing rubbish mound visible above the tree line. The tired old buildings are also visible from outside the estate and the mud on the road, piles of spoil, litter and HGVs all harm the countryside and are far worse. It would be wonderful to reduce all the different types of pollution in our area as well as reduce the HGV traffic on the road who do not adhere to the speed limits either, again this is dangerous for residents and wildlife. Re-instating our country side and green space and making Chelmsford a greener, more environmentally friendly place for us and future generations featured in the council's 'City Times' earlier this year as being a top priority, this development will contribute to helping achieve this commitment! We do appreciate that our ward councilor Mrs. Chambers is trying very hard to support us, however, she needs other members of the committee to stand with her as - she has stood with them on similar contentious applications in their own wards. Finally, we’d like to point out that it is in the members gift to determine whether the balance between planning policies and other considerations weighs in favour of granting planning permission and this application would see: - vehicle trips, including HGVs considerably reduce, - noise and disturbance reduce, - the appearance of the countryside improves, - ecology would increase, - affordable homes and market homes would be delivered, and - local bus services and shops would be used more.

Surely these benefits outweigh the retention of the industrial estate?

6. Nigel Goss – to be put in person at the meeting

I live opposite the industrial estate known as Ash Tree Farm and have resided here for twenty years. Being a resident of Boyton Cross, it has become increasingly difficult, over many years, to enjoy my own property. We, my family and I, have our peace disrupted in many ways by the activities of Ash Tree Farm. We are disturbed by HGV lorries both entering and leaving the site, sometimes as early as 5.30am and by users of the site working long in to the evening, also frequently on Sunday’s and Bank Holidays. By the noise, dust and pollution created by concrete crushers, grading machines and constant noise from diggers and other construction vehicles. By the constant coming and going of HGV’s (around 50 movements per day), using the site to dump their spoil, the accumulation of which now stands in a mound exceeding 15 meters in height, (this far exceeds the permissible height of 5 meters). Many times over the years we have been disturbed by fires of burning waste on the site, often hazardous enough to require the fire service to attend. Because of this Boyton Cross, with it’s 30 something dwellings, has gone from a pleasant, quiet place to live, to a noisy, polluted strip of houses dominated by an unregulated industrial estate. It is no longer that pleasant place to live. I have read the officer’s report and their recommendation to refuse grant of said application and have to question a number of reasons given for refusal. It states as reason one for refusal, that the site should be retained for rural employment. It is my belief that every person employed at the site drives there, I never see anyone walking to work. Additionally there are five industrial sites within 2 miles of Ash Tree Farm, all in remote areas. As point of note, at least one of these other areas has vacant units and has had for some time. You have to question if there is a real need to retain Ash Tree Farm in its current form. Reason two states that ‘The proposal, overall, would have an increased visual impact which would be urbanising and at odds with the surrounding rural character. This would be harmful to the identified intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside…’. What ‘beauty’? What ‘character’? I can only just begin to describe what a blot on the landscape Ash Tree Farm is, with it’s 15 meter mound of rubbish, unsightly and run down buildings (some burnt out), litter and rubbish generated from the site - but often not confined to it, mud and debris on the road and dust generated from industrial processes coating everything around. Ash Tree Farm is not a thing of beauty, it certainly has no intrinsic character – it is ugly. Reason three, ‘Spatial Strategy’. ‘The site is located in an inaccessible location for day to day needs’. ‘Walking to local services would not be a safe or viable option’. The village of Roxwell is an easy walk (7 minutes) from Boyton Cross via a well maintained footpath. I walk it two or three times a week, (in twenty years it has only been inaccessible on one day, to my knowledge). The report states that the road (Boyton Cross Lane) is too dangerous by which to access the village of Roxwell. I frequently use this route, and due to the many bends, what little traffic it carries, has to move slowly. The bus service to either Chelmsford or Harlow is reliable and regular. The No. 59 from Boyton Cross runs hourly (more frequently at peak times). It takes ten minutes to the centre of Chelmsford and runs seven days a week. The other option is the No. 46 Ongar Chelmsford service from Roxwell. Cycling too, is an option. It takes me 20 minutes to cycle to Chelmsford station. As a resident of Boyton Cross, I do in no way, feel isolated. Reason four states that ‘the proposal fails to secure these requirements…’. This is clearly not a point of refusal, as the detail would be negotiated. (See note 2 on document). Quite troublingly, the report tries to reassure, that the problems the residents of Boyton Cross are experiencing with the industrial processes taking place at Ash Tree Farm will be dealt with by appropriate enforcement action by Chelmsford City Council. This does not reassure me at all. For over six years the community of Boyton Cross have made the council aware of the many problems we are experiencing with the site, written letters, had meetings, provided photographic evidence and filled in log sheets. Despite this the situation gets worse, the HGV traffic increases, the mound of waste grows, the noise and dust, just get worse. Attempts at enforcement are slow and then ignored by the operators. It seems that Chelmsford City Council are unable to control what happens at Ash Tree Farm and have allowed the site to become an unregulated, unlicenced tip. A site carrying out processes of this nature should not be allowed to operate in such close proximity to where people live. I would welcome approval of this application for reasons I have stated above. In addition, as the report identifies, the benefit of a 36% reduction in vehicle movements, affordable housing and an appreciable net gain ecologically are most welcome. Our councillor, Nicolette Chambers, has listened to the complaints of residents and understands the situation with Ash Tree Farm and the frustration that we feel. Please can I urge you to support Nicolette, myself and many other residents, by granting permission of this application, so that we can once again enjoy the peace of our own homes.

7. Steven Hopkins – to be put in person at the meeting

These representations seek to address a number of legal issues that arise in respect of the consideration and determination of the Application. S106 The officer’s report to committee outlines that the proposed development would attract the following planning obligations:

• 35% affordable housing • On site provision of Local Open Space • Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) payment The report appears to acknowledge that the Applicant has indicated its acceptance of these Planning Obligations and the need for them to be secured by a S106 Agreement. The lack of a S106 agreement is said to be included as a reason for refusal in order to protect the Council’s position should the application be refused and subsequently appealed. I would like to make it abundantly clear that if the Committee is minded to grant permission for the development on its merits, the lack of a S106 Agreement should not be a stand alone reason for refusal. The Applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into the required S106 Agreement and any resolution to grant can be made subject to a S106 Agreement being entered into to secure the said planning obligations. Material Considerations Pursuant to Section 70(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (“the Act”) in determining the Application this Committee shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and any other material considerations. Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the determination of a planning application must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the determination of the Application it is a matter for this Committee to decide the weight that is to be given to the material considerations and to decide whether the material considerations justify a departure from any conflict that may be identified with the strict wording of the development plan. The point is that the assessment of the benefits of the Application and decision to grant planning permission is in the hands of this Committee The benefits of the Application have already been outlined, such as:

• The provision of 20 units of Affordable Housing • The fewer vehicles movements that would be generated from the site and the change in nature of the vehicles using the site from HGV’s to domestic cars • The positive contribution to biodiversity and net gain in wildlife habitats However, the key benefit is the opportunity to secure the complete cessation and removal of all existing activities at the site, achieve its environmental remediation and provide an acceptable long-term use for the site. This objective is similar to that achieved very successfully at similar sites at Temple Farm, and Morelands Industrial Estate, . As can been seen from the comments submitted by local residents, the current use of the site has an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the nearby dwellings. The amenities of those properties will be improved substantially by the complete removal of all existing uses and activities at the site. Further, the reduction in commercial vehicular movements and the significant reductions in noise by the industrial use of the site will benefit the nearby residential properties. There is presently an unauthorised 5 metre high earth bund around that part of the site occupied by a Groundworks company. This has been the subject of longstanding, and currently unsuccessful, enforcement action taken by the Council. This part of the site has also previously been the subject of unsuccessful enforcement action taken by the Environment Agency regarding the burying of controlled waste. The proposed development will include the removal of this earth bund and will include a full landscaping scheme for the site. There is has a history of the site being susceptible to arson attacks, the most recent being in 2019 when two neighbouring units were burnt to the ground causing Tri-tech Windows, A&B Cars, and PMC Valeting to vacate the site. Consistency The Local Planning Authority has a duty to apply consistency when determining similar planning applications (see North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and others [1992] 3PLR 113). Previous decisions are capable of being a material consideration as like cases should be decided in a like manner so that there is consistency in the decision making process and confidence in the planning system. The site has remarkable similarities with Morelands Industrial Estate. I understand that the Planning Committee took the initiative with that site to successfully secure its redevelopment to resolve what was a similarly “problem” site. It is within the Committee’s gift to also successfully secure the redevelopment of this site thus resolving the adverse impacts its use has on local residents and the problems encountered by those seeking to take enforcement action in relation to its previous and current unauthorised uses and development.

8. Councillor Nicolette Chambers, Ward Councillor

Boyton Cross is a small hamlet on the outskirts of Roxwell village. There is significant local feeling about the existing commercial use of the site and its extinguishment. I realise the starting point is always adopted planning policy, which in this case suggests that the site should be retained for rural employment. However, Section 38 (6) of the relevant Planning Act says that decisions should be taken in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The report suggests there are only a couple of businesses on site. There are in fact more than a couple: it is true that the owner of the site has deliberately not renewed leases to the yard or buildings in the hope that planning permission is granted. However, this is only a temporary reprieve for the local residents because if the site is to remain in employment use, (i.e. if the planning application is refused), then units and yards will be fully re-let and occupancy of the estate will rise to its earlier higher levels. So, it is wrong for the report to suggest that there are only a few businesses there. If the landowner cannot redevelop the site for residential use, he, or a future owner can legitimately seek permission to increase the number of yards and units and because the site is a rural employment site, planning policies are likely to support this. The report implies that enforcement action will deal with all the complaints of neighbouring home owners. However, all the enforcement notice can do is to deal with the unlawful tipping of spoil north of the ground workers yard. The yard itself is lawful and it is the business carried out in the yard that causes the biggest problem: high number of HGVs into and out of the site, mud on roads, dust and noise, disturbance etc. Most other occupiers of buildings and yards on the estate attract HGV vehicles and there are no controls over the number or size of such vehicles visiting each day. The hours of use controls on the estate do not prevent HGVs waiting in the access drive early in the morning or driving or driving around local roads until the units themselves open. Enforcement action has not to date and cannot in future actually deal with resident’s concerns about the estate in general. The report also suggests the site is isolated when in fact it found among a sizeable group of houses and is not set in the countryside on its own. There are many bus stops close by to enable residents of new homes to make use of public transport. There are benefits of the proposal to develop this site with housing, including the significant reduction in vehicle movements on rural roads, and an almost complete extinguishment of HGV traffic, improvements to residential amenity, housing and affordable housing provision, enhancements to biodiversity of the site and improvements to the character and appearance of the countryside that must be carefully be balanced against the benefits of retaining a rural employment site. To summarise, I would urge the committee to not retain the site as a rural employment site and weigh the benefits of the proposal to provide housing and affordable housing as set out above.