29/08/2025
There’s still time to get your objection for The Crumps Farm planning application in. Please make this a priority this weekend.
This is what we have submitted together with the echo of support from our other local parishes.
28 August 2025
Dear Essex Planning
Copy: Uttlesford Planning, Cllr Geoff Bagnall (UDC), Cllr Maggie Sutton (UDC), Cllr Susan Barker (ECC) Application Refs: ESS/16/24/UTT, ESS/16/24/UTT/OUT, UTT/25/2045/CC
Summary: Hybrid planning application seeking full permission for the importation and deposit of material/waste and the subsequent raising of land levels (retrospective), installation of landfill infrastructure and engineering works to facilitate a satisfactory restoration profile and outline permission for 121 commercial/industrial units and a solar farm on part of the site
Little Canfield Parish Council OBJECTS to these planning applications (OUTLINE and FULL), that sit within the Parish of Little Canfield.
Context
It is the understanding of Little Canfield Parish Council that; when permission was granted for Crumps Farm to be used for Landfill under application ESS/46/08/UTT, it was on the basis the site would be returned afterwards as park and recreational land for the benefit of residents. The failure to restore the area to parkland along with failure to implement measures to handle and control waste from the site as required is a breach of planning control and associated S106.
Instead, we currently have a poorly maintained approved landfill site which is causing nuisance and discomfort (by way of smells and polluted water running into ditches and river network) to residents. In addition, it is generally acknowledged that 500,000 tonnes of unauthorised waste has been disposed of at the site whilst it was under the control of Essex County Council, as the Waste Disposal Authority.
Little Canfield Parish has a situation where, it appears, there is a breach of planning control; a breach of S106 provisions associated with planning consent; failure to adequately maintain a landfill site and illegal disposal of 500,000 tonnes of unauthorised waste in our parish. To date, the authorities (ECC, EA) who’s duty it is to control these activities have had several meetings of working parties but have published no timetable for pursuing legal or criminal proceedings against those responsible for any breach.
Little Canfield Parish Council believe that Essex County Council should take the following steps prior to consideration of any decisions for development of the site. It is vital that remediation works to prevent further environmental damage and potential harm to health of local residents who are adversely affected by the condition of the site.
i. Pursue enforcement action against individuals and businesses responsible for the current situation prior to any decisions on permission for development of the site.
Page 1 of 9
ii. It should undertake a review of it’s internal processes and procedures that allowed such a gross breach of control of waste disposal to take place under it’s watch. The findings of this report should be made public along with actions and timings for implementation of findings from the report.
iii. If it believes the Environment Agency should take precedence in any legal or criminal proceedings it should actively support and pursue the Environment Agency to ensure action is taken
We note Great Canfield Parish Council, a neighbouring parish, have submitted a letter of OBJECTION, dated 21 August 2025. The reasons they state for objecting to the applications are equally relevant to the view of Little Canfield Parish Council and residents of the Parish. As such, we mirror their comments and fully support their views and include their letter as an attachment to our objection. Additional points to support our objection are listed below.
Economic and financial justification
There is no viable economic or financial justification to support the development.
It is clear that, to remediate the site to prevent further discharge of toxic fumes and leachate requires spending money – probably a lot of money! The developer makes claim that the purpose for proposing the building of the industrial units is to help cover the cost of this remediation works, yet they provide no business case to support such claims.
The Site Investigation Report provided to support the application is woefully inadequate and provides no interpretation of the data, therefore no assessment can be undertaken of the site and therefore planning permission should not be granted; the requisite consideration of impacts to the environment cannot be safely considered by the Planning Authority at this time. The Environmental Statement is in many ways thin on detail and only discusses the actions required on the landfills and does not consider the impacts of the post remediation development and so is not fit for purpose.
With such scant investigation and knowledge of what is contained within the unauthorised waste dumped on the site, it is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the cost of remediation. Therefore, any claim by the developers that development will provide finances for remediation to be completed is invalid.
The application claims there is a need for the proposed type of industrial development in Uttlesford. This is not the case. The Local Plan, currently under review, proposes significant industrial development opportunity to the west of Takeley, close to the M11 and A120 roads for transport and suitably close to Stansted airport to believe that it would appeal to businesses who would benefit from being close to a major airport. With proposals being contained within the local plan for industrial development in Uttlesford that are adequate to meet requirements, the economic case for the scale of development is invalid.
Transport links and traffic nuisance
The proposal appears to indicate little to no impact on the volume of traffic in the area. This feels to be at odds with the applicant claiming justification of the industrial development is to provide employment and economic development.
As such, Little Canfield Parish Council has joined with Takeley Parish council to commission a report on the impact to transport created by the proposed development. When this report is received, we will submit separate comments. We have been granted additional time for this report to be compiled and submitted.
Impact on the Flitch Way and River Roding
There has always been a presumption against development ‘south of the Flitch Way’ as it passes through Takeley and Little Canfield. As highlighted by Gt Canfield PC in their letter, the Flitch Way has been cited as a ‘natural boundary, which should be respected.’
Page 2 of 9
The scale of the industrial development proposed in know way respects the Flitch Way or the natural environment it lies within. Large buildings or a solar array on raised land would dramatically and adversely impact views.
Remediation work would be welcomed to control effluent discharge from the landfill impacting the River Roding. The applicant has made reference to agreement with Thames Water for treatment of 2million litres of effluent discharge. It provides no details of how this will be handled, or what timescale over which the expected discharge is measured. As industrial discharge consent limits are often based on daily quantities, it is assumed this is the case here. It is believed that 2m litres of effluent per day would require a significant size treatment plant. No such treatment plant is identified on the plans.
Full, independent environmental and biodiversity impact assessment reports should be completed before any competent decision on these applications can be made.
Conclusion
Uttlesford District Council have sufficient industrial development areas earmarked within their Local Plan
There are no grounds to any development to take place in Little Canfield South of the Flitch Way.
Without proper enforcement action being taken by the relevant authorities and covenants being placed on the land, committing landowners to proper maintenance of the landfill, no consideration of any development should be made. History tells us that planning conditions are held in little regard by developers and authorities have either little resource or appetite to pursue enforcement.
END
Yours faithfully,
