Theydon Bois Action Group (TBAG) was formed primarily to ensure that the village and environs of Theydon Bois would not be damaged and that villagers would not be adversely affected by the commercial activities of developers. The group has been particularly concerned with the Parsonage Golf development at Blunts Farm, Coopersale Lane, Theydon Bois. For 2.5 years the two villages of Theydon Bois and Abridge have been plagued by an average of more than 250 heavy lorries, making daily return trips, delivering landfill to the Blunts Farm site. These lorries have endangered families, and severely damaged private and public property including listed buildings. The traffic congestion, noise and pollution they have created has been intolerable and the surface of the B172 was so bad that 30 mph signs have been posted along the entire length from Abridge to the entrance to Parsonage Golf course, it has now been resurfaced at a considerable cost to the public purse. In addition, the Green Belt has been compromised and local residents have been further affected by the smell and the health dangers resulting from the dumping of unwanted and suspect materials.

This has all taken place because a developer has persuaded the LPA, Epping Forest District Council, to grant permission for the construction of a golf course necessitating the importation of hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of landfill. Another golf course would have be of little / no value to the local communities, there are 25 in a five mile radius of Theydon Bois. Although it was clear with this application that contours on the golf course would be developed with the methodology of landfill for its construction it was still passed. The whole development at Blakes Golf formerly Ongar Park and Blunts Farm has been very difficult to control necessitating the convening of an Ad Hoc Ongar Park and Blunts Farm special committee at EFDC. Enforcement notices were the subject of many planning and District Development Committee meetings and were eventually issued for Blunts Farm. The developer did eventually withdraw their appeal, but it seems that EFDC may not have been confident about the volume of material that was brought onto the site. The original land levels were not taken and there was no evidence as to how much material was brought onto site therefore an estimate of the volume of material that was imported onto the site was open to interpretation. The risk that the whole situation, the volume of material, source of material, and the eventual outcome was far too high, and indeed in this case the community is now left with a polluted moonscape. There are currently four huge deep water filled pits on site, the methodology of forming voids hundreds of feed deep in which to tip landfill waste has nothing to do with golf course construction and everything to do with flouting planning and environmental legislation. This has allowed millions of pounds in profits to be made, with no resulting benefit to the community.

We can evidence the importation of metal, brick, plastic, tyres, tarmac, tiles, concrete and waste sewerage sludge. The waste sewerage sludge was particularly unpleasant, it attracted thousands of seagulls and smelt disgusting, could there be a possible health hazard from this pathogenic material? A local resident has said at a public Parish Council meeting that he knew where waste oil had been dumped and had been told that asbestos had been imported to the site. We have seen bright orange liquid run from the land, the water in the vast pits bubbles and we have seen a suspicious green/fluorescent oily fluid and a disposable protective suit abandoned on site. Were these fluids industrial/chemical/solvent waste which should be properly destroyed by incineration, as is the case with Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and other similar hazardous materials?

There needs to be adequate records kept of all importation to the site, the records of what had been dumped at the Blunts Farm site have been lost in a fire at the site office.

There is a stream that runs at the bottom of the valley, how much pollution has leached into this natural watercourse? Why have the people of Theydon Bois been exposed to this risk in their health and safety to enable a group of unscrupulous property developers can make a quick buck by taking advantage of weaknesses in legislation that should protect people from such abuse.

HGV lorries would arrive under cover of darkness in the winter mornings at 6.30am and tip constantly all day 5 ½ days per week for 2 ½ years. We have photographic evidence of 45 lorries in a one-hour period during June 2005 and video evidence of at least 250 lorries a day during July 2005. How can this volume ever be properly monitored or enforced?

Even so the developer has imported considerably more than was envisaged in the planning application and rather belatedly enforcement notices have been served prohibiting the importation of any further landfill.

TBAG can demonstrate that this development has caused serious damage to the environment and roads. It has also caused considerable anguish to the people of Theydon Bois and Abridge.

TBAG wish to concentrate on the higher risk operations that we feel have abused the current system.

The specific cases we wish to highlight have not been easy to enforce have not been compliant and the penalty for non-compliance has not been prohibitive.

The level of regulatory control has not been proportionate to the risks that the operators have caused.

Environment and human health have not been protected.

The overall thrust for simplicity and a lighter regulatory burden for low risk activities must not further endanger the environment and human health and lead to an abuse of the system.

The use of the 19a exemption has in many instances lead to an abuse of the system through inadequate controls and conditions on planning applications. The widespread abuse of the 19a exemption must be considered high risk and must be more tightly controlled and or eliminated all together.

Current high risk, abuses of the 19a exemption that we know about locally include:

Blakes Golf Club formerly Ongar Park Golf Club, Epping Rd, North Weald, EPF/0367/96, and EPF/1310/05. Importation over a lengthy period of time that necessitated a vote for enforcement notices although they were not served. There is probably no estimation of how much material may have been brought to this site.

Parsonage Golf, Blunts Farm, Theydon Bois, Essex CM16 7NN, EPF/0765/99, (EPF/2195/06, included more importation but was withdrawn, EPF/1363/05 was also withdrawn) Enforcement notices were served and the EA withdrew the Waste Exemption Certificate. TBAG can evidence that at least 250 HGV’s dumped at the site over a 2.5 year period, we estimate that 1.7 million cubic metres of spoil was delivered to this site. As the owners / developers of this site also own and developed Blakes Golf we can assume a similar quantity could have bee dumped at Blakes Golf.

Stapleford Abbotts Golf Course, Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, Romford, RM4. This was the first course that the owners of both Blakes and Blunts used importation for golf course construction.

The methodology of importation for golf course construction has been a very profitable ‘ruse’ for one development team that have developed golf courses at Stapleford Abbotts, Blunts Farm and Blakes Golf.

North Weald Golf Club, Rayley Lane, North Weald, Essex, CM16 6AR, EPF/1996/04, EPF/0308/07, EPF/0958/08. These three applications have imported over a 3-3-½ year period a total of 300,000 cubic metres an equivalent of 600,000 tonnes of waste spoil. EPF/1996/04 was for 15,500 HGV lorry loads, EPF/0308/07 was for 100,000 cubic metres and EPF/0958/08 was for 45,000 cubic metres of material. The LPA seem to be happy with this development and planners and developers talk about waste soil and subsoil. But soil and stones (200202) and soil (170504) are outlined in the table specifying relevant waste in the use of waste in construction work, and should be limited to a weight of 500 tonnes, 250 cubic metres, 25 HGV loads. The developer has said that demolition waste is imported to site but it is then placed to one side and exported from site. But who monitors each load? Who can ensure that each of the 30,000 HGV loads is soil and subsoil and not demolition waste spoil? Who counts each load and or weighs each load to ensure that the maximum imported does not exceed the planning permission granted? With compaction how much is actually delivered to site?

Local applications not yet decided, but have a potential to be an abuse and or high risk include:

North Weald Golf Centre, Merlin Way, North Weald, Epping, Essex CM16 6AA EPF/0096/08 an application to import 141,000 cubic metres of spoil, 300,000 tonnes.

All of these developments, which utilised and may seek to utilise in the future, landfill for the methodology of golf course construction are high risk and imported way in excess of 500 tonnes, 250 cubic metres, of waste. Part 2 of the draft regulations use of waste in construction work, which includes the construction of tracks, paths, bridleways or carparks, confirm that a variety of waste can be used for construction work but should be limited to 500 tonnes. In entertainment or educational installations the total is 20 tonnes. In limiting the amount of imported material to 500 tonnes this would, in our opinion, completely rule out the use golf course developers have made of this lucrative business. 500 tonnes would / could produce a profit @ £100 per load of £2,500 not lucrative enough for unscrupulous developer who have made vast profits from high-risk developments.

The spreading of waste on land to improve soil structure or add nutrients or bio mass and or spreading waste on land for the purpose of mulching does not include concrete, tiles, bricks, clay or any type of demolition waste and is a maximum of 50 tonnes per hectare or 200 tonnes in any one time.

Sir John Harman Chairman of the Environment Agency has visited the site at Blunts Farm Theydon Bois and is quoted in the local press as confirming that the developer there had made up to £20,000,000 by importing waste on to green belt land.

It is clear that ‘unscrupulous’ operators have used the 19a exemption and the loopholes in current planning and environmental legislation to avoid landfill tax and make huge sums of money.

5.20 states that ‘Evidence has shown that the use of construction and demolition waste can be subject to abuse and large deposits would benefit from higher regulatory control. The use of waste in construction works exemption has therefore been developed for the small-scale use of imported inert waste material that could be carried out at any site without the need for a risk assessment.

What has happened at Blunts Farm Theydon Bois, Blakes Golf and North Weald Golf Club North Weald has been high risk and has damaged the environment. These developers have abused the 19a-exemption ad this loophole has to be closed. Hopefully the cap of 500 tonnes of demolition waste for the use of construction will halt the abuse that these developments have caused to the environment locally and nationally. Simple exemptions will no longer be registered for life, the maximum time limit of 3 years will at least limit the scale at which unscrupulous operators may abuse our environment. Reclamation or improvement of land, current limit 20,000 cubic metres per hectare, proposed limit 500 tonnes per site per three years for construction activities.

• We must ensure all requests for permits that require a planning application are decided by the Waste Planning Authority at County level.

• We must ensure that such operations requiring a permit are properly controlled and have adequate regulatory control that is proportionate to the risks that these developments have the potential to cause.

• We must ensure that the cost of the permit is adequate to cover the monitoring of the site.

• We must ensure that the request for a permit is dealt with as a potential serious threat to health and safety and viewed as such, the request for a permit must sound ‘alarm bells’ and be treated sensitively.

• We must ensure that another Blunts Farm can never happen again.