Sheik Z Hamidi’s Grounds for appeal may be seen in full here. (If you are on dial-up, this is at least a 2min download).

 

Roding Valley Residents’  Committee

 

Chairman Laurence Kubiak   Secretary: Jane Davies

www.saveourgreen.com

 

Mr Hamidi has made an appeal against the Council’s Decision to refuse him planning permission.

 

Mr. Hamidi, who bought the Green at the junction of Hornbeam Road and Chestnut Avenue from the previous owner, Mr. McLaren, has appealed against Epping Forest District Council’s Decision to refuse him permission to build a four-bedroom double-garage house on the Green.

 

The appeal will be decided by the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of a site visit by an inspector, and written submissions from any interested parties, including local residents. Epping Forest District Council will submit a report defending its decision together with all the paperwork they have on the Green so far: Mr. McLaren’s planning applications, the Council’s refusals and all the letters from local people opposing any development on the site.  The Residents’ Committee will prepare a detailed Statement of Objections, as we did for Mr. McLaren’s proposal for flats.

 

The decision of the Planning Inspectorate is final. It cannot be appealed, not even to the House of Lords. If the Planning Inspectorate decides to uphold the decision to refuse Mr. Hamidi planning permission, he can do nothing at all with the Green under planning law, and must abandon all hope of ever building a house on our Green. We therefore need to do everything we can to help the Inspectorate to decide to uphold the Council’s decision.

 

However, if the Planning Inspectorate decides to reverse the Council’s decision, we still have the Village Green applications (which do not depend on any planning decisions) to fall back on. In short, Mr. Hamidi has given us the opportunity of finally killing off any development under the planning regulations.

 

Please write to the Planning Inspectorate

 

Could we therefore urge you to write to the Planning Inspectorate at the address at the end of this flyer? The Inspectorate has to take account of your letters when reaching its decision, and the more letters it has, the more likely it is that the decision will go against Mr. Hamidi.

 

Unlike the Council, the Planning Inspectorate does not have to make its decisions in accordance with local planning policies or other guidance: indeed it can set planning policies aside if it feels there is a case to do so. This means that you do not have to base your letter around any specific planning policies as you did for the council. You can write what you like (within reason and the law) and the inspector will take account of it. So please feel free to tell the inspector about the Green, it’s history, how you have used it over the years, how you felt about Mr. McLaren’s activities, how you feel about Mr. Hamidi’s activities: anything at all that is relevant to the Green and your experience of it.  Above all, we urge you to tell the Inspector why you want to see the Green returned to its pre-McLaren state and why no houses must ever be built on it.

 

Last Friday the Committee obtained a copy of Mr. Hamidi’s Grounds of Appeal. The most important points are reproduced below (direct quotes are printed in italic type). If you do chose to write to the Planning Inspectorate, we suggest that you may want to respond to some of the points made by Mr. Hamidi, and we have added some comments which you may find helpful. The Grounds of Appeal is a public document, and you need have no hesitation in referring to it in your own letter. The Committee will post the document on the website (www.saveourgreen.com) in the next few days.

 

Mr. Hamidi’s Grounds of Appeal

 

“Our appeal is based on the following points:

 

1. We think the decision to refuse our application is based on the premise that at county council level the hearing regarding the “Village Green” will be favourable to the local residents. Epping council are therefore anticipating the outcome of a later decision by a higher authority. In Law a court cannot make a judgement based on the based on the presumed decision of another Court at a later time.

 

2. The local resident’s claim to the land is dubious in any event because on previous attempts to develop the land, on two consecutive nights, the hoarding was mysteriously flattened, suggesting violent means to prevent Owner from dealing with the land in his own way, We have had various people carrying out surveys on the land, who have all claimed of being intimidated by local residents, (1 in particular) as soon as they set foot on the land.

 

3. Reason 1 of the refusal says that the development is too overwhelming and will have an adverse visual impact. We have not been given an opportunity to scale down the development, and indeed were told not to bother with any subsequent re submission as this would end up with the same result, If the Council did not see the resubmission how could they reject them out of hand?

 

4. After having pointed out to the Council about the way the majority of the local residents were intimidated into objecting to the proposal, too much weight was attached to these objections. Mr. Kubiak, who is the chairman of the local resident action group was, in our opinion openly pressuring people into objecting, and on visiting their website this can clearly be seen. Ihhtp://www.saveoutGreen.com/News.htmndeed. (Ed: This appears to be a reference to http://www.saveourgreen.com/News.htm).

 

5. The council should have made a decision based on the merits which would have left enough open space for local residents to use. In fact the design and access statement says that our client would have, by way of a section 102 agreement, to leave the land not used in the development to local residents, and would at his own cost keep it in prime condition.”

 

The Residents’ Committee comments:

 

1. Mr. Hamidi appears not to have noticed that neither Epping Forest County Council nor Essex County Council is a court. There’s a clue in the titles: they’re councils, not courts, and his point is therefore completely irrelevant.  

 

What’s more, just imagine if Epping Forest District Council allowed Mr. Hamidi to build a house, and Essex County Council had then registered the land as a Green. Mr. Hamidi would then have had to pull his house down and return the land to the state it was in before he built; and he would no doubt sue Epping Forest District Council for damages. It follows the only possible decision for Epping Forest District Council was to refuse Mr. Hamidi planning permission: no responsible Council could ever have done otherwise.

 

There are two parts to 2. In the first Mr. Hamidi is saying that the land cannot be a Green because the hoarding blew down. Not only is this illogical, it is also wrong in fact:  a Green becomes a green because local people have used it as a green for 20 consecutive years, not for any other reason,  and any talk of hoardings being flattened “by violent means” is therefore completely irrelevant. Mr. Hamidi also omits to mention that hoardings were illegal (Mr. McLaren had not applied for planning permission for them, and was refused planning permission when he did apply), and that the judge in the High Court did not agree that they had been flattened by violent means.

 

The second part of 2. is more serious. Given recent history, non-locals acting suspiciously on the Green are always going to attract mistrust and challenge, but we are not aware of any case where local people have not behaved with perfect courtesy and stayed well within the bounds of the law, often despite enormous provocation. Unfortunately we can’t say the same thing about the developers we have had to deal with in recent years. If Mr. Hamidi really has any evidence of people being intimidated he should place it before the police.

 

Para 3. needs a little explaining. When Epping Forest County Council turned down his application for a four-bedroom house with double garage Mr. Hamidi wanted to try again, but for a smaller development.. The Council advised him not to bother, as local opposition was so great that the Council would have no option but to reject whatever he proposed. In short: the Council was trying to do him a favour by stopping him from wasting his time.  However, Mr. Hamidi’s point is not correct: the Council did not prevent Mr. Hamidi from submitting a second application. Under the law, he has the right to do this at any time, and if he does, the Council must give it due consideration. The Council was merely telling Mr. Hamidi that it was almost impossible for them to grant planning permission on this site, which is perfectly true.

 

4. We take the strongest exception to Mr. Hamidi’s suggestion that we on the Committee have resorted to intimidation. We believe that we have never intimidated anyone, have never intended to intimidate anyone, that the level of support for our attempts to protect the Green is so high that we will never need to even consider intimidating anyone, and that we do not have the means to intimidate anyone even if we wanted to, which we don’t, and never would.  Anybody who has taken the time and effort to write a letter of objection to the council has surely done so voluntarily, of their own free will.

 

The Committee members were all elected by proposing, seconding and a show of hands at a public meeting. Not one of us put ourselves forward for serving on the Committee, and we have always tried to the job local people asked us to do as effectively as we can.

 

If we have ever been guilty of intimidating anyone we take this opportunity to state that this was never our intention and we apologise without reservation. But we repeat: we do not believe we have ever intimidated anyone, and we would like to know what evidence Mr. Hamidi has for this outrageous slur on the honour of the members of the Committee.

 

Mr. Hamidi singles out Mr. Kubiak for special condemnation, stating that he is pressurising people into objecting. Mr. Kubiak does not see how he can pressurise anybody into looking at a website, let alone acting upon anything they might see on that website. The website pages Mr. Hamidi seems to be referring to simply cite local planning policies which the Committee believes provide the Council with sufficient grounds for refusing a planning application. This is public information, which Mr. Kubiak undertook to research and make available to local people so that their objections to planning applications could be more effective. How on earth can Mr. Kubiak force anyone to access the website, look at certain pages and write a letter based on these pages, and pressurise the Council into making a decision based on those pages?

 

5. is easy. The Council did make a decision based on the merits of the proposal. They rejected it.

 

As for the space that Mr. Hamidi was prepared to leave and keep “in prime condition” for local residents; this was by his own admission the land he could not use in his development. In fact it was the land made unusable by the presence of the electrical substation, the underground stream and the roots of the remaining ancient oak tree. Mr. Hamidi might say that this is enough “open space” for locals to use. We disagree. It is the whole of the land that has been used as a Village Green since the 1930s, not just a small sliver that Mr. Hamidi can’t build on anyway.

 

Mr. Hamidi’s letter to the Chairman of Epping Council

 

Mr. Hamidi has included a letter he wrote to the Chairman of Epping Forest District Council (Mrs.Caroline Pond) on 17th July 2007 in his Grounds of Appeal.  We reproduce the text of this letter in full below.  Again we note that this is a public document: you may refer to it in your letter to the Planning Inspectorate if you so wish.

 

“Dear Madam,

 

I am writing to you because I am alarmed at the action being taken by the residents of Hornbeam Road.

As you may be aware, I have recently purchased the land at the junction of Hornbeam road and Chestnut Avenue. I have put in for a planning application, which is quite modest given the applications a previous owner has proposed.

As I am aware of the concerns of the local residents about the scale of any development on the site, I have had a look at the “action group’s” website, and discover that they are actively encouraging people to make a protest against my application. In my opinion this amounts to blackmail.

It encourages people, who might otherwise have had NO objections whatsoever, to launch a protest against my proposal, out of fear of being branded a bad neighbour. The website even tells the neighbours HOE [sic] and exactly what to write in their letters.

I am enclosing a copy of the call to protest against me for your information in order to show that I am not just imagining this.

This sort of behaviour must be ignores, if not actively discouraged, as I am starting to believe that, because of my Asian origin, they do not want me in their neighbourhood.

As I have said in my previous letter, it seems to me that the local residents want the benefit of the land without paying for it.

They were quite happy for me to pay the money and now want to claim the land as their own. If they were concerned about the future of this land, and had such an affinity to it as their local Village Green then why do all these residents, who now complain about it being used for a house, not pool their money together and bought it when it was first sold for a mere £5,000.

I am asking you to assess the application I have proposed purely on its merits and not be influenced by bullying from 1 or 2 local residents.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

S. Hamidi

Chairman Newham Bengali Welfare Association & Education Trust.”

 

The Residents’ Committee comments

 

By encouraging local people to protest against planning applications on the Green and telling them how they can do this most effectively, the Committee is simply doing exactly what the local residents asked them do. It is hard to see how anybody could ever construe this as “blackmail”. Furthermore, Mr. Hamidi is here making a very serious allegation, for blackmail is a criminal offence in English Law under the Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968.

 

The Council does not publish the name or address of anyone who writes a letter of objection to any proposal unless the writer gives the permission, so there is no possibility that anyone would fear being branded as a bad neighbour in the way described by Mr. Hamidi. Furthermore, the Committee cannot make anyone write a letter of objection against their will. Nor is the Committee – which has 15 members, not “1 or 2” - in any position to “bully” the Council into doing anything.

 

The Charles French Trust did not sell the land on the open market, and did not advise local people that the land was for sale. We were therefore not able to pool our resources and buy the land. When Mr. McLaren brought a case in the High Court against the Chairman of the Residents’ Committee, local people did not hesitate to pool their resources, and we won the case. When Mr. McLaren sold the land both the Parish Council and a local consortium were prepared to bid for it, but Mr. Hamidi’s purchase of the land before it came to auction deprived them of the opportunity.

 

It is also important to remember that Mr. Hamidi himself bought the land for a “mere” £32,000 and told at least one local person that he got it so cheaply because of the Village Green application. When his planning application was refused last year, he put the land on the market at £450,000, but found no buyers, and is now asking £250,000 for it.

 

It is difficult to know what to say about Mr. Hamidi’s attempt to accuse an entire community of racism. The Committee was formed fight any proposal put forward by any person for the redevelopment of the Green. They would fight (and have fought) the proposal in the same way no matter who the owner was.

 

We do hope that you will write to the Planning Inspectorate, and that, if you do, the details in this letter are useful. If you have written already, there is nothing stopping you from writing again, now you have seen the Grounds of Appeal. But please do write, and encourage your friends and neighbours to write as well. This Appeal matters more than all the previous planning applications put together.

 

The address is:

The Planning Inspectorate

Room 3/16 Eagle Wing

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol

BS1 6PN

 

quoting reference APP/J1535/A/2065399/WF. The deadline is 3rd April 2008. Please note that you must send 3 copies of your letter to the Planning Inspectorate. They can all go in the same envelope.

 

You can also comment online at the appeals area of the Planning Portal (www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs).

 

The Village Green applications.

 

We do not yet have a decision on the Village Green application –Essex County Council are being very slow at the moment. Mr. Hamidi did lodge an objection to the second Village Green application, but his objection is legally invalid because he did not provide the Council with any evidence to show that the land is not a Village Green. Last month the Council suggested of calling a public hearing before an inspector to make a decision on our application. We are resisting this because this would delay the decision by about a year (to spring 2009) and we believe that the Council has more than enough evidence to grant our application now. As soon as we know how the Council intends to reach its decision we’ll let you know.

 

New to the area?

 

Welcome to Roding Valley! You may like to visit the Committee’s website at www.saveourgreen.com for a full history of our fight to save your Village Green, which soon will have run for two years. Alternatively, please ask one of your neighbours to point out a Committee member to you: any one of us will be only too pleased to go through the history of Roding Valley Village Green and our fight to save it

 

Many thanks for your continued support.

 

Roding Valley Residents Committee

 

Sheik Z Hamidi’s Grounds for appeal may be seen in full here. (If you are on dial-up, this is at least a 2min download).