Coombes Farm NEW HOUSING PLANS 2026

Are you concerned about the loss of Green Belt land at Coombes Farm, Rochford?

Are you worried that your walk along a footpath with far reaching views across farmland and direct access to the King Charles 3rd national coastal path could become a walk through a traffic infested housing estate? (including at least a fivefold increase in traffic along Rocheway which would be the only access to the estate)

Coombes Farm is under threat again from ICENI Projects with a Planning Application (reference 26/00106/OUT) for at least 230 homes and a residential home.  It's envisaged that if permission was granted that ultimately more houses on the same site would follow (previously plans were aiming for 320)

Please object by commenting on the plans here:

OBJECT TO PLANS.  ASAP 

This purpose of this webpage is to inform and involve the community in fighting the latest plans to develop land at Coombes Farm. See link here to plans

https://planningdocs.rochford.gov.uk/Planning/planning-documents?SDescription=26/00106/OUT

WHY ARE WE HERE AGAIN?

We've been here before, which is why we know the community will come out in strength as it did more than 15 years ago. A local campaign group has been formed under the banner of "Save Coombes Farm".

For 4 years between 2009 and 2012 Rochford residents came together to protest against plans to concrete over this much loved and used green lung on the edge of the town. After a number of official hearings, appeals and Court battles we thought a High Court decision in 2012 supporting Rochhford's Local Plan at the time (which was opposed to Coombes Farm) would be the end of the matter. We thought a useful precendent has been set so it is desperately disappointing to see ICENI Projects take advantege of the current hazy planning environment and try again.

WHAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY?

There have been previous attempts at development, most notably in 2009 when the plans were emphatically refused by Rochford District Council (RDC) see here https://planningdocs.rochford.gov.uk/my-requests/document-viewer?DocNo=795529

A Government Inspector upheld RDC's decision particularly citing largely unacceptable development on green belt.

Unfortunately this wasn't the end of the matter and the Developer (along with another Developer) took the matter to the High Court, focusing on the weaknesses in Rochford's core strategy/local plan (which hadn't been in place when the plans were originally rejected in 2009 but by 2011 a plan had been adopted by the Council after statutory sign off) And because the Plan was finally in place and considered "sound" the High Court appeal ultimately failed at the time.

COMMENT ON COOMBES FARM IN THE COUNCIL's EMERGING LOCAL PLAN

Coombes Farm is incluided in the Council's Site Assessment Methodology (regulation 18).  This is the Council's review of possible sites that could be developed for housing in the future and their judgement whether it's likely to be viable.  This is a key part of the Council's local plan. There are different categories attaching to possible sites, eg "clear omission" means the Council is clear it doesn't think the site is viable.  Coombes Farm is a "Marginal Omission" which potentially levaes the door open to development (see below)

People can let the Council know that they feel strongly that this site shouldn't be developed, that it should be a clear omission - by following this link https://tinyurl.com/4826chb5  . For exmaple commenting that it was a site that's already been refused by the Council, a decision supported by a Governement Inspector. This was due to inapporopriate development on the green belt. You need to create a log in to be able comment.  It's also important to quote the site reference which is CFS116 (a)

Coombes Farm is referenced in the Local Plan:

Summer 2013 - Coombes Farm won't go away

Despite the Council's plans for future growth of the district being signed off by a Government Inspector, they are subject to ongoing review.  In fact, Hearings are taking place in September to discuss, amongst other things, whether housing schemes are going to plan - particularly that homes are being built in the numbers and timeframe set out by the Council.

Cogent Land, Owner of Coombes Farm, will be attending the Hearings.

It seems to me that those interested in ensuring that development does not take place at Coombes Farm should never rest easy, unfortunately.

Cogent Land own the land at Coombes Farm and they will be constantly looking to exploit any gaps or shortcomings in the Council's growth plans for Rochford.  If, for example, housing schemes fall behind schedule and the Council can be challenged that they are not complying with their own Plan, Cogent will be quick to step in with what they regard as an easily deliverable scheme for 250 homes plus...

See link below for Attendees at Hearings in September

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/rochford.gov.uk/files/all_drafthearings_0.pdf

Coombes Farm saved in High Court ruling (updated)

It's over three years ago that residents and neighbours first came together to form a Group "Residents Against Coombes Expansion" but a High Court ruling on Friday, September 21st finally signalled the successful end to a long battle.

Two days later on a wet and windy Sunday just a handful of us gathered at the entrance to Coombes Farm in Rocheway to pose for a "victory" photograph for Monday's "Evening Echo".

The Court rejected Cogent's  (the Developer behind Coombes Farm, formerly Colonnade) challenge to the Local Development Plan or Core Strategy.  Ruling in Rochford Council's favour, the Judge stated that sufficient work had been undertaken to compare the pros and cons of various sites put forward for consideration for development, this being Cogent's main contention.

The decision means that, aside from the eventual redevelopment of Stambridge Mill, future growth in Rochford will take place to the west of the district, sadly kicking off with 600 houses at Hall Road with further commercial development along Cherry Orchard Way in the pipeline.

In some ways it was a pyrrhic victory as the District has still sacrificed green belt, something Basildon/Billericay has avoided in their own Development Plan.

"Green Belt" trips off the tongue easily but I think it is fair to say that not all green belt is equal. Listening at the first Government Inquiry into the Developer's appeal against Rochford Council's refusal to allow development on Coombes Farm I heard an "Expert" representing Colonnade effectively describing the land as an eyesore.  The implication being that it was land that wouldn't be missed and could easily be sacrificed.  I readily admit that "Natural England" is unlikely to be troubled with a request for designation of "Land of Outstanding Beauty".

In fact, the "Expert" was right.  It isn't a particularly attractive site. Purdeys Industrial Estate is located along one border and the sight of towering, stacked cars awaiting breakage greets you as you the enter the field along with the various noises emanating from the cement works, refuse disposal site and various other heavy industrial businesses.  Then there is the abandoned Stambridge Mill.  Slowly rotting away, it awaits some form of residential redevelopment, eventually.  Ironically it is the definitive footpath that crosses the field that was the original "Mill Lane" ,the main pedestrian route for many of its workers.  These days the path remains intensively used and that is what the Campaign was largely about.


Of course no one really wants a sprawling housing estate on their doorstep where previously existed toiled farmland but the battle to save Coombes Farm was much more than small town "nimbyism".


Adjacent to the edge of the town, Coombes Farm provides a rural respite that is extremely popular with dog walkers, leisure walkers accessing the Roach Valley Way towards Stambridge and Paglesham, cyclists, metal detector enthusiasts, horses and their owners, and so on.  All manner of Bird and Wildlife lives on Coombes Farm, including Badger Setts which at one time we thought could offer the field protection. But, who knows, with the Government allowing their slaughter in some areas,  maybe a less certain future awaits.  It really is a feast for the senses and we would be the poorer without it.  Fortunately, and finally, that is a worry that for the forseeable future is removed.  Time, finally, to move on and consider Rochford's many other attributes...

Latest Coombes Farm plans unanimously rejected

At the Development Committee last night, Cogent/Colonnades's latest attempt to develop land at Coombes Farm was unanimously rejected by Councillors. This is not the end of the matter, as Cogent is behind the legal challenge to the Council's core strategy which will be heard at a High Court hearing at the end of May. Interestingly, the Council was asked (by Cogent's legal team) to defer any decision of the planning application in view of the pending legal hearing. The Council refused to oblige.

No one knows how the High Court hearing will go but new policy guidance issued this week by the Government, the National Planning Policy Framework, appears to support the Council's position. Local Authorities should have a Development Plan in place (Rochford has) and new development should be both sustainable and environmentally sensitive. Situated under the flight path (which is likely to change in the near future, to the detriment of any new development at Coombes) and adjacent to the ever expanding Purdeys Industrial estate surely does not meet that criteria. This is before you even consider the traffic and green belt impacts.

So, good news for the protection of Coombes Farm but with an eye to the next stage of the legal proceedings...

Coombes Farm 2 - The Answer's still No! (updated 20th February)

UPDATED 20th February: Brightly coloured posters and newsletters have now been delivered. Objection letters will be accepted right up to the day the application is discussed by the Council (regardless of what it says on the notice of planning application). No date has been set for this yet. It's unlikely to be for at least several weeks, especially so given the, separate, legal challenge to the Core Strategy will not be heard until 31st May.

Notifications of a new planning application for Coombes Farm have been delivered by Rochford District Council.

With minor amendments, it still represents the concreting over of Coombes Farm and I anticipate the strength of feeling against these plans will be undiminished.

You can make objections online and clicking on the title of this post will take you straight to the relevant page on the Council's website. You will need to enter reference 11/00781/OUT.

Colonnade have tried to disguise this as a different scheme - referring to it as "Land South of Stambridge Road" instead of Coombes Farm, and Colonnade have even changed their name - to Cogent. But it is the same scheme and the same Company. Surely they didn't think we would be so easily fooled?

The Council recently adopted their core strategy - their development plan for the area for the next 15 years and beyond. Whilst it did not detail specific, detailed locations for new housing, it did, generally, rule out East Rochford and Coombes Farm, with the notable exception of Stambridge Mill.

Therefore the only way Cogent/Colonnade stand any chance of progressing their plans is to mount a legal challenge to the Core Strategy, to try and find it unsound in the High Court. If they can undo the Core Strategy then they have a second chance to lay concrete at Coombes Farm. And that is exactly what they are attempting to do. The Court Hearing is scheduled to take place in Cardiff from 31st May to 1st June.

As my earlier post noted, in the nightmare scenario that they succeed, we lose not only the beautiful landscape at Hall Road but also Coombes Farm. We can't let that happen.

Whilst much of what happens in the next few months will be in the hands of High Court Judges, we can still show how passionately we feel about the prospect of losing a much loved and heavily used green open space, which of course is Green Belt land. We don't want our Councillors and other decision makers to think we've lost interest, we've given up, that it's something we don't care about anymore.

Posters and newsletters will be delivered over the next couple of weeks, and other publicity is planned. In the meantime, please make your objections - click on the title to this post. It will take just 2 minutes of your time.

Footnote: A photo shoot for the Echo to publicise the new Campaign was organised with less than 24 hours notice on Saturday, 28th. It wasn't possible to inform everyone, so apologies, but thank you to those who did turn out. A great example of the Community coming together that will make this campaign succeed.

This Blog will also be continually updated, and all constructive comments are welcome.

Rochford Core Strategy Challenged - Coombes Farm 2

It is ironic that within a week of the Council agreeing to the 600 housing development at Hall Road, Cogent Land, the developer behind Coombes Farm has, at the last possible moment, notified the Council that it intends to instigate a legal challenge to the core strategy.

This, frankly, is the only route open to Cogent if they want to stand any chance of progressing their plans to concrete over Coombes Farm.

"RACE" the campaign group has been reformed and will undertake a new publicity campaign in the weeks ahead.

I feel it is also worth pointing out that if Cogent Land are successful in their legal challenge then the Council's justification to destroy Grade 1 agricultural land at Hall Road is completely undermined, plus we lose another large swathe of green belt land into the bargain (at Coombes Farm).

Click on the title of this post to link to the Council's announcement.

Coombes Farm 2 - New Application submitted (23rd December)

Iceni have slipped a fresh planning application in to concrete over Coombes Farm today, just as peoples' attentions are focused on more festive matters!

I haven't seen the full details yet, but I have to wonder what their game plan is.

The Core Strategy, Rochford's local development plan, was formally adopted by the Council last week and this should rule out any development at Coombes Farm for at least the next 15 years.

If Iceni wish to pursue their plans to concrete over Coombes Farm they will have to successfully challenge the Core Strategy in the High Court and they have until the 24th January 2012 to lodge an appeal.

However, at the same time, they have to follow the planning process which means the new application will be considered by Rochford's Planning Committee and will, in all likelihood, be refused. This, however, isn't likely to happen for at least a couple of months, passing the deadline to appeal against the Core Strategy.

I guess they may adopt an assault on two fronts and consider High Court action against the Core Strategy simultaneously to following the conventional planning route to try and urbanise Coombes Farm.

Basically, yet another long legal battle commences...

Coombes Farm 2

Iceni's fresh attempt to concrete over Coombes Farm prompted a great show of familiar faces last night as the "new" plans were displayed at the College in Rocheway.

Posters were handed out asking why, if Councillors, Planning Inspectors, and Residents had all said "No" to previous attempts to build, Iceni were trying again.

Cynically presented as a different scheme and even re-named "Land South of Stambridge Road", representatives from Iceni were left with no illusion about the undiminished strength of feeling against any plans to build.

The Council has ruled out any development at Coombes Farm for at least the next 15 years in their local development plan (its "core strategy"). These plans have now been endorsed by a Government Planning Inspector, so Iceni would have to mount a successful Judicial Review to overturn the core strategy to stand any chance of success. I don't however doubt for a moment that they will try, given their past threats of legal action at every stage of the planning process.

This Blog will detail all aspects of the residents campaign to save Coombes Farm.

Once a planning application is submitted it is likely a residents meeting will be arranged to establish a common approach to fighting the proposals. This time, it would be great to get even more people involved including some of our younger residents.

Coombes Farm Saved

We have today been advised that Colonnade have withdrawn their appeal against the planning refusal at Coombes Farm. Technically, there are now no current oustanding planning matters at Coombes Farm and if Colonnade, or another developer, want to try again they will have to start afresh. The Council is adamant that, apart from Stambridge Mill, it does not want any significant house building in this area so let us hope that today's decision is a harbinger for a positive final resolution.

Why did Colonnade withdraw their appeal? My view is that it was a combination of three factors, national - a High Court decision (Cala Homes)recently has not helped their case, local - the Council have taken steps to avoid their core strategy being found unsound which helps to ensure Colonnade haven't got another hole to exploit, and thirdly, by avoiding the risk of a further refusal, they are perhaps in a better position if they want to try again. Given all above, I would be surprised if we see any activity for some time however.

I'm sure this will come back in the future, but for now, we can take a breather!

High Court ruling helps Coombes Farm ..a little

The High Court yesterday (Cala Homes vs Government) ruled that that Planning Inspectors can, on occasion, take into account that Regional Strategies will be abolished if the Localism Bill becomes law, as is expected at the end of the year - it is in its final stages of its passage through Parliament. This was the bone of contention Colonnade had with the original Coombes Farm refusal, and how they manged to eventually get the decision quashed.

Colonnade's Lawyers successfully challenged Eric Pickles' addendum to the Planning Inspector's original refusal. This was because Mr Pickles' had stated that Planning Inspectors could effectively ignore Regional Strategy legislation forthwith, due to the Government planning to abolish the same in its Localism Bill legislation. A High Court Judge originally ruled that this was illegal because legislation had to be passed to abolish Regional Strategies. However, it was later ruled that it made sense, especially when considering large development plans which may be phased over a number of years, that Planning Inspectors, when making a decision, should have an eye to any soon to be introduced legislation (in this case "The Localism Bill")

This latest clarification may also help the Council to get its Core Strategy finally approved by the Planning Inspector. A decision had been expected around now, but the Council asked for it to be delayed to take account of the High Court decision, and also to allow it to undertake some further work to demonstrate that all options had been properly considered in relation to new housing locations.

For me, this latest legal ruling doesn't bring the legal clarity I would have wished. It isn't bold or strong enough enough to end the endless legal challenges. Expect to see Colonnade try to get a second full Inquiry into Coombes Farm as their Lawyers try to find a hole in the Council documentation supporting their original refusal, as well as their ongoing challenges to national policy. Remember, Colonnade's QC, and the QC who has been in the High Court recently appearing for Cala Homes is one and the same.

Coombes Farm - why we're in this mess

Edited from an earlier post, but remains pertinent.

If Eric Pickles had not issued his letter, supporting the Planning Inspector's refusal, and directing Planning Authorities that Regional Strategies are revoked with immediate effect, and the same letter to be regarded as material weight in decisions on planning matters, we would not be in this limbo period and, most importantly, Colonnade's plans would be no longer.

That's because the Planning Inspector refused Colonnade for a number of reasons, most signifcantly due to the land being designated green belt. She made no reference to Eric Pickles' letter. That came with a supporting document, in addition to her own decision, from the Secretary of State. However, the two documents form the whole refusal, and it was enough for Colonnade's legal team to seize upon as one of the reasons for its appeal for Judicial Review, and subsequent success in getting the consent order from the High Court to quash the planning decision (refusal) of 22nd July 2010.

Moreover, the now infamous "Eric Pickles' letter" is the subject of ongoing High Court Action by Cala Homes, effectively on behalf of various national developers, including Colonnade (Peter Village QC acts for Cala, as he did for Colonnade).

If Eric had kept quiet it would probably be game over for Colonnade. We would not be here in this period of uncertainty, two years after plans were first submitted. The Planning Inspector gave sound and robust reasons for refusing Colonnade, which should withstand any Judicial Review. So much for the new Government's proposals for planning issues! It hasn't helped Coombes Farm at all. In fact, quite the opposite as it's kept Colonnade's candle flickering for a little while longer. Eric, this is not a good start. You were given poor advice and the result is an impression of incompetence and rubbish decison making.

Coombes Farm to be re-determined

Copy of email sent to Coombes Farm supporters today, click on the heading for a copy of the letter from the Secretary of State;

Dear All,

In case you haven't received directly, I attach a letter, received today, confirming the Government's intention to redetermine the Coombes Farm planning application, following the original decision being quashed last year.

Key points are;

Submissions are invited only on the points which led to the Quashing in the first place - ie not issues relating to green belt and other matters raised in the Inquiry - these should still be valid, but issues relating to this Government's intention to abolish Regional Strategies, and any other significant changes since the original Planning Appeal.

Submissions are in writing only, but there is a chance that there will be a re-run of the Planning Inquiry.

What people really want to know is, does this mean the development at Coombes Farm could take place? My view, and that of key Councillors, is that the arguments heard by the Planning Inspector have not changed, but sadly until, or if, we receive the document that confirms refusal, nothing is certain I'm afraid.

How long will it take? No definite answer on this - it could be 3 months, or longer than a year, depending on various different, but related, pieces of legislation making their way through the Courts and Parliament.

What can we do? I will respond to the letter, stating that the Planning Inspector came to the right decision, and that it is a pity that her letter was covered by a letter from the Secretary of State saying that Planning Inspectors could take into account future legislation ("The Localism Bill") The letter stated that, in determining planning applications, Councils would no longer be bound by housing targets and other matters defined in existing Regional Strategies (in Rochford's case, the East of England plan), and that a rewording of his letter is all that is required. The legal standing of this letter has been the subject of a number of High Court challenges, still ongoing. If people wish to respond as well - in a similar vein, or with their own points, it can only help - the address, etc, is on the attached letter.

Our Councillors are aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, but it would do no harm to raise any concerns you have with them directly.

Regards,

James

Coombes Farm - positive developments

As the linked article (click on title) from the Echo summarises, Colonnade are on the back foot now. I've sought some clarification from the Council about the status of the planning application and what happens next. The planning decision was quashed due to Eric Pickles' letter, the one advising of the proposed abolition of Regional Strategies, not the Government Inspector's refusal (Christine Thorby). In principle, therefore, the Government Inspector's decision can still be relied on, and it is only a case of "un quashing". The latest High Court decision says that it's rational for house builders to have an eye on incoming plannning legislation, even if not formally legislated. The bottom line is that it's possible for this application to be redetermined and refused without a second planning Inquiry. A couple of hurdles to overcome yet, the High Court decision may be successfully challenged and the Council's Core Strategy, which does not support the Coombes Farm development, is yet to be signed off. But, one way or another, we should have a conclusion by May, and it's all looking a lot more encouraging.

Coombes Farm - High Court win supports battle

The Government has today won a High Court case against Cala Homes, a national house builder trying to build up to 2000 homes at Barton Farm in Winchester. Today's ruling will have ramifications for house builders and affected communities around the country. Judge Lindblom ruled that the proposed abolition of Regional Strategies, in Rochford's case "The East of England plan" and adoption of the Localism Bill CAN be a material consideration when considering planning applications, such as Coombes Farm. This ruling helps the battle for Coombes Farm, as it was the uncertainty over the future of Regional Strategies which Colonnade seized upon to secure their eventual quashing of the planning appeal decision. We now wait to hear how and when the Coombes Farm application will be re-determined, but the case against development is strengthened in this rollercoaster ride. I expect that Cala Homes will appeal the High Court decision however.

Combes Farm - Iceni's threats of legal action

Anyone who is interested in the latest developments on Coombes Farm should follow the correspondence between Iceni Projects, Rochford District Council, and the Government Inspector responsible for the continued core strategy hearings which have taken place this week. (click on the title of this post to take you to the relevant page on the Council's website) Iceni, on behalf of Colonnade, has presented a Freedom of Information request to the Council for all documentation relating to their evidence base and audit trail in reaching their conclusions on, in particular, the location of housing requirements in the years ahead. The number of documents requested seems ridiculously lengthy and indicates an increasing desperation on Colonnade's part, especially since their efforts to make further representations at the Core Strategy were rebuffed by the Government Inspector. Iceni has threatened to legally challenge the Core Strategy, if found to be sound, if time is not allowed for it to present what it considers to be further crucial evidence. In addition to the Core Strategy hearings, the High Court will, on 7th February, give its Judgment on whether the new Government's decision to abolish Regional Strategies before passing its Localism Bill can be taken into consideration in planning decisions made in this "void" between old and new legislation.

Coombes Farm to go to Judicial Review? UPDATE 15th September

Colonnade's last throw of the dice? Full info on campaign website (click on title of this post)

Now the application for 163 houses at Stambridge Mill has been submitted and, given the location is on brownfield and has Council support, is likely to get approval, the nightmare scenario of nearly 500 new homes in a small area moves another step to becoming reality.

But stepping back from a moment I have to remind myself what the judicial review process involves. It's not about questioning the decision the Planning Inspector made when refusing development at Coombes Farm, it's about the process she followed to get there.

Therefore if you accept that the decision was correct - basically, refusal due to there being no exceptional circumstances allowing re-classification of Coombes Farm as green belt - and it is only process that is found at be at fault then the judicial review is far from guaranteeing Colonnade, the developer, success.

It may be that the process has to be reviewed, but the same decision is reached.

It may be that this is indeed Colonnade's last throw of the dice and the Judge throws out their application for review.

It may of course be the first step towards Coombes Farm being concreted over but I remain optimistic, but frustrated and disappointed that Stambridge and Rochford residents, who have been united in their opposition to these plans, have to endure the agony of a further protracted period of uncertainty.

In the meantime the Council continues with its attempts to get its "core strategy" signed off by a Government Inspector, and other planning applications such as Stambridge Mill and Brays Lane will no doubt be shortly decided upon.

For Coombes Farm, perhaps the longer the application for Judicial Review takes, the better. Much time in the Planning Inquiry was devoted to affordable housing, or rather Rochford's lack of. This was presented by Colonnade as a strong reason for agreeing the development. If other developments come forward, in sites which are less controversial, which address the affordable and overall housing targets this may help to defend Coombes Farm if a further Court hearing has to take place.

The ifs and buts continue...

UPDATE 15th September

22nd October could be a key date for the Coombes Farm saga. A completely separate housebuilder, Cala Homes, has succeeded in obtaining a fast tracked judicial review hearing in respect of their plans to build a few thousand homes in Winchester. Their plans were refused partly because Eric Pickles wrote to Councils advising that they no longer were bound by the previous Government's house building targets. Whilst the Government plans to reinforce this with a new Act of Parliament probably in 2011 (the "localism bill")the issue at stake is whether Eric Pickles' letter can be given "material weight", ie can it be relied upon in a legal sense when planning decisions are made by Councils, Government Planning Inspectors, etc. The Government has sought legal advice and believes it can, but Cala Homes' legal advice is obviously different which is perhaps hardly surprising since they are represented by the same QC as Colonnade, Peter Village.

The relevance to Coombes Farm? Given the Inspector based her decison largely on green belt legislation you would think very little. However, as I've mentioned earlier in this post, the application for Judicial Review isn't about the decision it's about the process to get to the decision. In the Grounds for Appeal, Colonnade cite the Inspector's reference to Eric Pickles letter. They reckon the letter is unlawful and the Inspector should not have even referred to it in her decision making. If Colonnade are right, the Cala Homes Hearing will, if it succeeds, give them the precedent they need. But as I've stated at the beginning of this post they're still a long way away from getting the decison changed.