The granting of the original application in April 2000 by EFDC Plans Subcommittee 'B', was too long ago and the Ombudsman can not investigate this. It is worth noting however that 'It was not until the end of March 2004 that the Council were satisfied that conditions were met (methodology statement and revised plans) and work commenced on 14 April 2004.'
They also can not investigate why and or how the original topography of the land was not taken and or lost, as this forms part of the original application as is too old. As EFDC do not have the original topography and have no idea what the original land levels were they have been advised that defending any appeal against Enforcement Notices or against a potential appeal against a planning refusal will be very difficult. By not having the original topography they have placed themselves in a potentially un-defendable situation with the developer.
The Council had a survey of the land conducted by an independent surveyor in September 2005, if this survey is accurate why are EFDC finding defending their situation difficult?
Why have they encouraged the developer to submit a new application EPF/2195/06?
We also requested that the monitoring of the development on site be investigated. EFDC state 'The Council believes that action it has taken to control the site has at all times been timely and appropriate. It says it undertook regular monitoring and carried out site visits, pursued negotiations and voluntary compliance with the developer and commissioned its own independent survey in order to obtain the necessary evidence to justify enforcement proceedings.' Apparently 'It is important to understand that the shaping of soil and formation of sub - levels is not possible in the winter months as the soil is too wet and the ground therefore too easily damaged. Site inspections during late autumn and winter were therefore of a general nature only.
TBAAG would like to comment that if the site was controlled in a timely and appropriate manner how is it that such an excessive amount of material has been dumped on site? Considering that it is the second time this developer has used this methodology of golf course construction locally, TBAAG feel EFDC should have monitored the site more stringently in the circumstances.
We were also concerned that the Enforcement Notices that were agreed by councillors on 9th March 2005 were not issued. Apparently the developer was 'continuing to give assurances that any extra material would be removed from the site, that any deviation from the plans was only temporary, and that the finished course would be in accordance with the approved plans. The enforcement notice did not then need to be served as the developer appeared to begin to comply with the Council's instruction. However, by summer of 2005, it was apparent to the Council...that the number of lorry movements to the site was considerably exceeding the 6 per hour originally advised by the developers.'
It is interesting that EFDC thought that lorry volumes were at any point running at 6 per hour.
TBAAG were told and it was reported in the press that each lorry was monitored and checked at least six times and that the developer had to provide documentation to EFDC on each lorry depositing waste. However 'The planning permission for the golf course did not include a condition that required the developer to monitor and notify the Council of the contents of the lorries depositing material at the site. Consequently if the developer did collect that information himself, he was under no obligation to pass this on to the Council.'
We asked about the size of the pits. EFDC state that 'The formation of the pits was not in itself contentious and were agreed as being necessary in order to contain the imported waste, to give the subsoil coverage for the deposited areas, and to create the agreed contouring over and above the base levels. Total voids in the region of 180,000 cubic metres were expected which was slightly more than the agreed volume of imported material. The fact that pits were created was therefore not of initial concern. However, it became clear in the spring / summer of 2005 that the land areas being presented for approval were higher than indicated in the application.'
Sorry, are we missing something here we were under the impression this was a golf course development not a landfill site being prepared to contain vast amounts of imported waste.
It is also interesting to note that on the survey conducted by Stace the void volume is 206,039 cubic metres. Is it usual golf course methodology to dig four huge pits with a volume in excess of 200,000 cubic metres? Stace state that the volume of imported material is 511,000 cubic metres, that is approximately 50,000 lorry loads. TBAAG estimate the volume of imported material is nearer to 1.7 million cubic metres. Each lorry contains approximately 10 cubic metres, 250 lorries per day, 5 1/2 days per week over 50 weeks of the year for 2 1/2 years, equates to 1,700,000 cubic metres. The site has an area of 635,000 square metres, that would equate to the site being covered 2.6 metres deep with spoil. Walk the site on the public paths, taking care not to fall in one of the pits and have a look for your self. The area does not look like it is covered with 80 - 110 cm of waste.
EFDC were concerned about the methodology of both the courses at Blakes Golf, formerly Ongar Park and Blunts Farm and set up a committee to deal with these concerns. The Ongar Park & Blunts Farm Golf Courses - Ad Hoc Special committee, apparently 'had no remit to consider either the specific development at Blunts Farm or the monitoring of this.' The committee met seven times between July 2001 and October 2003. It is minuted on 24th July 2003 in a letter from the chairman of TBPC that he was 'particularly concerned about references to the importation of material to the site.' On 8th October 2003 it is minuted 'There had been no conditions stipulated over the lorry routes, although access to the site would have to be improved. Environmental Services hoped to get a voluntary agreement with the developer over lorry routes and signage,hopefully avoiding the need for lorries to come through Theydon Bois itself. The Head of Planning Services informed the Committee that the developers were expected to import substantial amounts of material for the inter-fairway moulding.The developers had refused to modify their requirements from the stipulated levels of imported materials in the planning permission, thus the plans received would have to be checked against the planning permission. If the developers made more extensive use of 'cut and fill' then the course would look less intrusive, but the level changes should not be as dramatic as occurred at Ongar Park.'
It does seem strange that this committee with no remit to consider the development at Blunts Farm spent much of its time discussing it. In the TBPC minutes for 31st July 2003 Cllr. Roy Newman, a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, spoke: 'Cllr Newland said that Epping Forest District Council had set up an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with the problems of Ongar Park and Blunts Farm Golf Courses. The Parish Council and the Rural Preservation Society had expressed considerable concern about the lorry movements pertaining to this development. The decision notice for planning permission had been given in 2002, after finalising a legal agreement, for the development of the site as a golf course, subject to a number of conditions requiring prior approval of details before the commencement of the development. It had been agreed at the planning stage that in principle the Course should be constructed using imported material to create the contours and this could not now be reconsidered. However, it was considered reasonable to insist on further modifications to the submitted indicative earthworks plan to lessen importation and associated lorry movements. It was also considered that the estimation of quantities of imported materials should be checked against the approved drawings. Importation of hardcore onto the site had commenced and a substantial working area had been constructed which was in breach of the conditions and requirements of the legal agreement. Several other conditions to be satisfied prior to construction of the site had not been met. The Committee resolved to ensure that the requirements of the legal agreement and the conditions applied to the planning permission were applied vigorously and immediately, with any breach of the agreement and/or conditions being subject to appropriate action. If necessary, court proceedings to prevent excess lorry movements and the deposit of spoil on the site in excess of any importation materials specifically authorised. It had been noted that the work had now stopped.' - for a time.
The Ombudsman also concludes that as dumping did not start officially until March 2004, after the committee had disbanded that 'comments of the Ad Hoc Committee do not appear to relate to what is happening, but to what may happen.' It would be interesting to hear what the councillors who sat on that committee understood their remit to be.
It may be reported that work did not officially start until March 2004, but anyone that uses the Abridge Road or lives on the route will testify that dumping at Blunts Farm started much earlier. In fact the following is minuted from the Theydon Bois Parish Council meeting of 31st January 2003 : 'Cllr. Smith ... asked about enforcement measures being taken against dumping at Blunts Farm. Cllr. Glozier reported that an enforcement notice had been served but that since then a three month extension, due to expire about now, had been agreed. Cllr. Smith asked that the Council be kept informed about developments on this site.' So we know that the situation was a concern as early as January 2003, at least fourteen months before work on the site had officially started, and certainly while the Ongar Park & Blunts Farm Golf Courses - Ad Hoc Special Committee was considering the situation.
We also had concerns about councillor's misleading TBPC and residents at Parish Council Meetings. The Ombudsman can not investigate individual councillors and has advised us to raise the issue with The Standards Board for England, which we have done.
For all those residents that sought an enquiry and felt that the situation needed investigating, we are sorry we have exhausted the avenues open to us. It is very difficult to brush 1.7 million cubic metres of hardcore under the carpet, but we are sorry to say that this is the situation.