How The Council Sees It….

The District Council have a new page on their website about the fire at Michelin’s Farm. Residents can decide for themselves if they are satisfied with what the council say:

1. What stage are we at in the planning enforcement process with Michelins Farm?

While we have a confirmed enforcement notice, action has already been taken against the previous landowner by Rochford District Council and the Environment Agency, resulting in a conviction, fine and imprisonment. The previous landowner was also ordered to pay the court costs of the Environment Agency and Rochford District Council, which have now been received.

2. Has there been joined-up working in this case?

Essex County Council, Rochford District Council and the Environment Agency have been working closely on this matter, hence the successful prosecution, and continue to work together.

3. Does the Council still believe the site to be in breach of planning?

Yes, and given the lack of compliance with the enforcement notice, the Council has been exploring various options. We are continuing to work with Essex County Council and the Environment Agency on this matter.

4. Why did the Council not take direct action to prevent something like this from occurring?

Direct action would require professional expertise in this case due to the contaminated nature of the land. Any such action would have been at a significant cost to the tax payer, and it is unlikely that this could have been recovered. Therefore other options have been considered.

5. Why has Rochford District Council not issued a Compulsory Purchase Order on the site?

After the Court hearing on 11 July 2014, various options were discussed, including Compulsory Purchase. However, as the defendant was imprisoned thereafter, the site ownership had changed and the Council?s Allocations Document was subject to a legal challenge at that time, no firm decisions could be taken at that point. Moreover, the removal of the vast amount of unauthorised items and materials works at this site could involve highly significant costs. Accordingly, the value of the site is not yet known and the Council would need to be cautious in any action concerning a Compulsory Purchase Order with tax payers? money. This option has not been ruled out though. In the mean-time the Environment Agency and the Council have pursued a successful prosecution of the former site owner for not complying with the enforcement notice.

We will be looking at various options going forward, which will involve working with our partners and seeking to liaise with the new owners of the site.

6. Is the Council aware that the ownership of the site has changed?

Yes, but the enforcement action relates to the land and that being the case, the five directors of the company will be actively pursued as the landowners responsible for complying with the requirements of the enforcement notice.

7. Is the land not potentially too contaminated to be a traveller site?

Only a small portion (1 hectare) of the site is allocated for a 15 pitch travellers? site, and this will need to be subject to remediation as is the case with any potentially contaminated site before development. In order to establish the levels of contamination there would need to be a survey and assessment by specialist contractors.

8. Has the Council considered taking direct action and then putting a charge against the land to cover the cost?

The concern is that the remediation costs would not have been recoverable resulting in a significant cost to the tax payer. While it is accepted that, in theory, expenses of direct action can be secured by way of a charge on the land, this site remains heavily contaminated and full of waste. The Council would need to establish whether this would exceed the value of the land. There is also the fact that the initial costs outlay would fall directly to the Council with uncertainty as to how much, if any, monies could be recovered.