WELCOME TO FELSTED

Please see below an update from UDC’s Head of Enforcement:

I am conscious that the second Bank Holiday is upon us.  I will provide a current position statement.

I will start with a summary of where we are:

Willows Green (Site 1)

This has a Temporary Stop Notice (TSN) served on 5 May

The TSN was apparently immediately breached. The sanction for this is prosecution through the Magistrates. This is still an option for UDC, but this requires securing Magistrates Court space, sometime hence, and is not considered the immediate effective route at this stage.

A Temporary Injunction was served on this site on 7 May. With a High Court Hearing on 13/5.  At the request of the travellers this was adjourned, to a Hearing on 18/6. This retains the injunction. There was activity on this site on the morning of 13/5. The travellers claimed that they were in occupation of the site at the time of the hearing. Following site visits by officers on 13/5; the Court were content that the site wasn’t occupied by travellers, at the time of the hearing, and this was made very clear in the adjournment judgment.  Clearly any occupation would bring in welfare considerations etc.

The Council has been made aware of further caravans being brought on the site with some indications of lights overnight (either alluding to or actually occupying the site).

Milch Hill (Site 2)

No activity had occurred on this site, but this site was highlighted to the Council from numerous sources over the past fortnight, as a likely second site. Fears were exacerbated by planned Affinity Works after the Bank Holiday to install Mains Water.

On the basis of this information, the ownership of the site and the activities on Site 1 (in close proximity), UDC secured a Temporary Injunction on this site which was served on Saturday 16/5. This has a hearing scheduled for 2 June.

Council Officers have been monitoring this site. We have received reports of activities around the site, but currently nothing on the site.

I have been liasing with Affinity Water who in knowledge of the injunction has taken its own legal advice and has called off the planned works. If they haven’t already they will inform the local residents.

Looking Forward Into this Bank Holiday Weekend

Both the sites are now subject to Temporary Injunctions. It is for the Court to enforce the injunctions. Any action from the Courts would be on the basis of evidence provided by the requesting authority (UDC).

We are aware of alleged breaches at Site 1; this appears to be seeping actions of additional caravans and some activity. As I have stated there is currently no apparent activity on Site 2.

To Manage Expectations: Any further activity, even after hours, will be progressed during office hours as this would have to be presented to the Court, this is not an emergency issue for the Courts. Therefore, any evidence gathered, would not be able to be progressed through the Courts until working hours.  As such local residents should not expect any Council Officers to attend the site over the weekend. Council Officers would not be able to physically prevent any incursions or activity on the site; and as you appreciate I do need to put the safety of officers at the top of my considerations.

Although this is understandably worrying for those locally,  this would not be considered an emergency if referred through the Council’s out of hours channels. However, I will add the Council continues to take this matter very seriously and will continue to act robustly, within the confines of the process. The process is now very set in office time and there is nothing either physically or legally that can now be achieved out of hours.

We have no indications of what will happen over the weekend. Both sites have impending High Court dates regarding their injunctions. Officers will be agile and ready to move on Tuesday should any activity occur. That is the earliest time for any action. I am confident that anyone planning activity over the weekend is well aware of the confines of the system.

The Role of the Police

Throughout, officers have liaised with the police on the matter. I should clarify that currently the police have no enforcing role regarding the injunction. They have no right to arrest persons for breaching the injunction or to seize equipment etc. Any arrest powers can only be on instruction by the Courts; we are certainly not at that stage.

The police also would not have powers to prevent any access to the site.

The police’s role is solely around any issues of Breach of the Peace and any other alleged crime and would be contactable through the usual emergency channels.

Report of proceedings at the High Court in the Strand this afternoon to hear the arguments advanced in support/opposition to the continuation of the Injunction obtained by UDC in the terms as granted last week.

UDC were represented by an experienced barrister who has previoulsy dealt with many GAT cases.

UDC were represented by a Senior Enforcement Officer whose affidavit evidence had been used as the basis for the Injunction application. An Officer from Democratic Services was also in attendance.

The Defendants were represented by a solicitor (who was required to obtain leave to appear) – only instructed this morning by the Essex GAT representative who was also present.

There were 5 representatives of the Defendants present in Court.

It was said that there are 14 families interested in the site and their solicitor said that as her clients were illiterate and so numerous, while she was agreeable for the injunction to be continued she needed to be allowed time to gather her evidence in rebuttal for which a period of a minimum of 6-8 weeks was required.

UDC Counsel said that there was no evidence of “occupation” which the Judge noted. Opposing solicitor said her instructions were that “there are people in occupation”. The Judge observed she had seen no evidence of that and said she was willing to continue the injunction on that basis and to allow more time for defendants’ evidence but in the expectation that matters could be argued out at the next hearing without need for a further adjournment. The Judge wanted the matter to come back as soon as possible.

The first Defendant named is the person who applied for retrospective planning permission and it was not clear if he is the owner of the land. It does not appear that the application has been validated yet.

After a brief adjournment to allow Judge to consider the Defendants’ evidence (which apparently raises welfare needs and human rights) which was sent this morning,  the Judge has ordered that the Injunction now continues in place until a new hearing date of 18 June (one day allowed).

The defendants are required to serve their evidence no later than 1630 Wednesday 27 May, UDC evidence to be served in reply by 10 June, court bundles filed by 3 days before and written Skeleton arguments to be served 2 days before the hearing date fixed.

The Judge had prepared a judgment in advance which she read out justifying the legal principles for continuing an injunction of this type (which it must be recalled is discretionary and is not “dished out” or maintained automatically) including giving the following reasoning:

* it raised a serious issue to be tried

* prima facie there is change of use (development with hard core and caravans for habitation)

* development continued after stop notice

* it causes real harm in the area

* damages are not an adequate remedy – ie public interest

* no evidence of occupation when injunction was applied for

An Order is being prepared today to this effect and the Judge wanted it served by e mail on the defendants solicitor and on the field itself.

A Planning Application has been submitted for the “Hedgehog Grove Solar Farm” that was originally
pursued as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), meaning that the final decision on whether permission for development was approved would be made the Secretary of State on behalf of the
Government, but this was subsequently withdrawn.

However, following changes made by the Government in December 2025 under the Planning and
Infrastructure Act 2025, there is now no specific “maximum” power output that a solar farm is legally
prohibited from exceeding; rather, the Act redefines the regulatory pathways for projects of varying scales.
The most significant change introduced by the Act and its associated secondary legislation is that the act
raises the capacity limit for solar farms that can be decided by local planning authorities under conventional Planning Applications from 50 MW to 150 MW. This means that solar farms can now produce up to 150 MW of power while remaining under the local planning regime, in our case, that is via Uttlesford District Council (UDC).

Felsted residents are able to comment to UDC on the application now it is formally submitted. No doubt
some residents may choose to support the application, and some will object.

The Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date is……….…Saturday 16 May 2026

Details of the application (and the opportunity for those residents who wish to comment) can be found at:
https://publicaccess.uttlesford.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application
By entering the application reference number UTT/26/0445/FUL

Felsted Parish Council has objected because we have already supported TWO solar farms within Felsted
Parish, one covering 38 acres (shown in red on the map below) which has been fully operational since
2014 and the other covering 282 acres (shown in blue on the map below), which received full planning
approval from UDC in 2023 but is yet to be constructed. Both located near Willows Green.

Our concern is the scale of the proposal and the cumulative impact of the existing approved 320 acres plus the proposed additional 675 acres (shown in yellow on the map below) which would bring the total
combined area of Felsted under “Solar” to circa 1,000 acres or 405 hectares, seriously impacting our rural
environment and displacing wildlife etc. In addition, the majority of the impacted land, according to the
Natural England – Agricultural Land Classification map for the Eastern Region (ALC008) would be on land
classified as “Grade 2” i.e. “Very Good” BMV (Best and Most Versatile) or Grade 3a “Good” agricultural
land.

The use of almost 1,000 acres of what is classified as BMV Grade 2 “Very Good” or Grade 3a “Good” land
is considered unacceptable and unsustainable.