Truth Behind the Plan: 6. Community Voice Ignored – Why Our Parish Plans Matter
Behind every planning policy lies a promise: that communities will be heard. This promise was enshrined in the Localism Act 2011, which empowered residents to shape development in their area through Neighbourhood Plans — plans that carry legal weight once adopted.
But in Chelmsford’s latest Local Plan Review, this promise has been broken. The decision to allocate Hammonds Farm — a Strategic Growth Site for 3,000 homes and a business park — runs roughshod over carefully crafted community visions.
Neighbourhood Plans: More Than Just Aspirations
Neighbourhood Plans are not advisory. Once passed at local referendum and formally adopted, they become part of the statutory development plan, with the same legal status as the Local Plan under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
They must be taken into account in all planning decisions — and any Local Plan must be compatible with them to be considered legally sound.
The purpose of these plans? To ensure that local knowledge, preferences, and place-based priorities shape how development comes forward.
The Affected Parishes Have Done Their Part
Across the rural parishes surrounding Hammonds Farm, communities have stepped up to this responsibility:
- Sandon: Adopted its Neighbourhood Plan in November 2024
- Little Baddow: Has a completed and active Neighbourhood Plan
- Danbury: Recently adopted a finalised Neighbourhood Plan
- Boreham: Designated a Neighbourhood Plan area in May 2024 and is actively preparing its plan
These are not theoretical efforts. They are lawfully prepared, community-led plans, produced in accordance with statutory processes — many after years of consultation, drafting, examination, and public votes.
A Common Vision Across Four Parishes
While each parish plan is distinct, they share core values:
- Protection of rural character and open landscape
- Separation buffers between settlements
- Sustainable growth proportionate to local infrastructure
- Preference for brownfield and infill development
- Investment in local services before large-scale expansion
None of these plans oppose growth. Rather, they advocate for the right kind of growth, in the right places, with local support.
Yet the proposed allocation of Hammonds Farm and Pigeon Industrial Site— with 3,000 homes, 2 x 43,000m² of employment land, a spine road, and a school — is in direct conflict with the stated aims of all four.
Ignored in the Evidence Base
Despite the clear legal standing of Neighbourhood Plans, Chelmsford City Council’s Local Plan review fails to show how the allocation of Hammonds Farm complies with or respects these locally adopted policies.
- There is no clear policy compatibility test
- The site selection process does not reference these Plans in any meaningful way
- No attempt is made to reconcile conflicting objectives or justify override
This is not a minor oversight — it is a fundamental policy conflict. According to national planning guidance, Local Plans must be:
“In general conformity with adopted neighbourhood plans.” — NPPF & Planning Practice Guidance
Failure to achieve this may render a Local Plan unsound.
Policy S7: Strategic Growth Over Localism
Policy S7 of the draft Local Plan sets out a centralised growth strategy, funnelling housing into large Strategic Growth Sites, including Hammonds Farm.
But this approach:
- Ignores the spatial strategies of parish-level planning
- Disregards the granular knowledge and evidence gathered by local communities
- Fails to respect the spatial hierarchy in which Neighbourhood Plans are a material consideration of equal legal standing
Rather than align strategic growth with neighbourhood aspirations, the Council’s strategy appears to sideline local voices in favour of developer-led expansion.
The Legal and Democratic Implications
This is not just a planning policy issue — it is a democratic one. If lawfully adopted Neighbourhood Plans can be ignored with no justification, what incentive remains for communities to engage?
Planning Inspectors have previously rejected Local Plans where they:
- Fail to engage with existing Neighbourhood Plans
- Allocate development in direct conflict with community policy without robust justification
Legal precedent shows that Inspectors can and do declare Local Plans unsound where Neighbourhood Plan conflicts go unaddressed.
Conclusion: Localism in Name Only?
Sandon, Little Baddow, Danbury, and Boreham have spoken — through lawful, democratically adopted plans that reflect the values, identity, and needs of their communities.
Chelmsford City Council has a statutory duty to respect those plans. Instead, it has overridden them in pursuit of a flawed, top-down allocation model.
If planning is to have any public legitimacy, it must begin — and end — with the community. Hammonds Farm undermines the legal and moral basis of localism, and it must be removed from the Local Plan before further damage is done.
Leave a Reply