Truth Behind the Plan: 8. Planning for Profit – Developers Over Communities
Behind every policy line, zoning boundary, and glossy ‘vision document’ lies a crucial question: who really benefits?
In the case of Hammonds Farm, the answer is clear — and it is not the residents of Sandon, Little Baddow, Danbury, or Boreham, nor the wider Chelmer Valley. The primary beneficiaries are private developers and landowners, pursuing speculative gain while communities are left to shoulder the burden.
The Developer-Driven Agenda
The proposal to allocate 3,000 homes and 43,000m² of employment space at Hammonds Farm has not emerged from community need, infrastructure assessments, or coordinated public-sector planning. It has been driven by:
- Pigeon Investment Management
- Hammonds Estates Ltd
- Private consultants engaged in land promotion
No statutory infrastructure body is leading delivery. No public partnership is in place. This is a private land deal repackaged as public policy — marketed with attractive phrases, but ultimately fuelled by profit, not public good.
The Voice of Four Parishes — Silenced
Across the four directly affected parishes, communities have spoken clearly and lawfully:
- Sandon: Adopted its Neighbourhood Plan in November 2023, which forms part of the statutory development plan
- Little Baddow: Has a completed and active Neighbourhood Plan
- Danbury: Finalised and adopted its Neighbourhood Plan recently
- Boreham: Has a designated Neighbourhood Plan area (May 2024) and is actively developing its policies
Each plan emphasises:
- Protection of rural identity and open landscapes
- Opposition to large-scale speculative development
- The need for green buffers between settlements
- Sustainable growth aligned with local services and infrastructure
Yet none of these community priorities have been respected in the Local Plan’s allocation of Hammonds Farm. No justification has been offered for overriding these lawfully prepared, democratically adopted documents. This is not planning with communities. It is planning around them.
A ‘Garden Community’ in Name Only
The Hammonds Farm proposal uses the language of “garden communities” — green space, sustainability, community-building — but fails to meet the Government’s own definition.
True garden communities:
- Are infrastructure-first
- Include early and confirmed education, health, and transport provision
- Feature employment opportunities
- Are shaped by community consent
By contrast, Hammonds Farm offers:
- No NHS agreement
- No funded school or road network
- No clear transport strategy
- No public-sector delivery body
- No community mandate
It is a developer-led speculative project, not a genuine placemaking exercise.
Public Infrastructure, Private Gain
Any roads, schools, or services — if they ever come — would likely be delivered at:
- Public expense (via Essex County Council or central government)
- With long delays and disruption
- And no guarantees of delivery or quality
Meanwhile, landowners and developers would benefit from:
- Enormous land value uplift
- The ability to negotiate away commitments over time
- No direct accountability to local communities
This is a high-risk, one-sided arrangement, where the community bears the cost, and private interests collect the profit.
Public Infrastructure, Private Gain
Much of the infrastructure needed to make Hammonds Farm viable would be delivered — if at all — at public expense and in the meantime tens of thousands of peoples lives would be blighted until they delivered….probably never. Meanwhile, landowners and developers stand to gain windfall profits from pbuilding possibly sub standard houses and flats without providing that infrastructure. This is not a balanced partnership. It is public risk for private reward.
A Pattern We Know All Too Well
Across England, we have seen the same story:
- Glossy “visions” fade as schemes progress
- Infrastructure lags behind development
- Affordable housing quotas are reduced
- Local voices are excluded
Hammonds Farm follows this familiar arc — big promises, vague delivery, and the erosion of community trust.
Communities as an Afterthought
Throughout the Local Plan process, affected parishes and residents have been:
- Excluded from early site selection
- Left to react to proposals, not shape them
- Provided no credible answers to serious concerns
The Local Plan treats Sandon, Little Baddow, Danbury, and Boreham as obstacles to be managed, not partners in shaping the future.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Planning for the Public
The Hammonds Farm proposal is not a bold, sustainable vision. It is a textbook case of speculative planning, where developers set the agenda, and communities are expected to fall in line.
If adopted, it will:
- Undermine four lawful Neighbourhood Plans
- Strain infrastructure that doesn’t yet exist
- Undercut public confidence in the planning system itself
This allocation must be removed — to protect the integrity of Chelmsford’s countryside, restore faith in democratic planning, and ensure that the future is built with communities, not around them.
Leave a Reply