Chelmer Meadows development
Application by Stonebond
An application to build 55 "affordable homes" on the Water Meadows by the Fox & Raven. Residents rallied together and convinced Councillors to reject the application. The developer appealed the decision, and it is now going to a Planning Enquiry.
Latest News
5th September 2025
A small group of us have decided to fight Stonebond head on at the Planning Enquiry, as:
The Custodians of the Chelmer Valley Water Meadows
You can support us by regsitering below.
Application received
17th July 2023
23/01105/FUL | Residential development comprising the construction of 55 affordable homes, provision of open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage, ground re-profiling, formation of bund, cycle and footpath links, vehicular access from Chelmer Village Way and highway changes to Chelmer Village Way. | Land West Of The Fox And Raven Chelmer Village Way Chelmer Village Chelmsford Essex.
This application is not in the Local Plan and seemed to have come out of nowhere, although it turns out it has been in discussion behind the scenes for several years.
The application includes the transfer of a large parcel of land on the floodplain into Council ownership. This is the greater part of the Water Meadows to the West of Barnes Mill.
Initial reaction
6th August 2023
A substantial part of this site is literally on the floodplain, in an area which floods almost every year now. In fact, this is one of the first areas on the Meads to flood, and one of the last to drain. Parts of it stay wet for months on end — hence the name, Water Meadows.
Correction the flood in the photo was January 2021.
The site is underwater again
11th February 2024
As if by divine intervention, the site has flooded. This is not even a bad flood, and yet this is one of the worst flooded areas on The Meads.
A bund won't protect this development. This is an insane place to build.
A long history of flooding
There is a long history...
A wreckless development
The Chelmer Valley Floodplain, including this site spanning the edge of it, serves a critical function as flood storage, to protect our City and towns and villages downstream. We have been chipping away at for decades, and being complacent about the dangers. Building on the Water Meadows is not only damaging to the environment and heritage in the area. It is also reckless!
The development is reckless — because living on floodplain is neither affordable nor safe. Will Stonebond pay for the upkeep of their flood defences? Will Stonebond underwrite their insurance? No of course they won't, and when it floods, these poor people will likley find themselves with homes that are uninsurable, impossible to sell, and stuck in negative equity because of this. This development would be lumbering the people who can least afford it with the least affordable homes, in addition to endangering its residents.
This development is reckless — because flood storage capacity in the Chelmer Valley has been chipped away over decades. Most notably, when the A12 cut the floodplain in half, with its embankment acting like a dam to floodwaters. More recently, the Wharf Road development has taken a huge area that flooded regularly in the 1940s and 1950s and replaced it with a lump of concrete, causing a massive reduction in flood storage that hasn’t been offset. But don’t worry, because the Council has been building SuDS basins on the floodplain, showing they have no idea what they’re doing. The purpose of these basins is to hold water back from the rivers to prevent flooding, whereas building them on floodplain not only fails to do this, but reduces flood storage, making the problem worse.
This development is reckless — because more water now flows onto our floodplain than it used to, due to increased runoff from overdevelopment. I have personally examined the hydrometric data for our rivers, and was so concerned by my findings I made this website as an alarm call to other residents, the Local Council, and the Media. In simple terms my analysis shows that there has been a dramatic increase in the volume of water flowing into the Sandford Basin when it floods, without an increase in rainfall, making it unlikely that climate change is the cause. The most plausible explanation is increased runoff from extensive urbanisation of the catchment area since the 1970s.
25:05 Officer's report & recommendation to approve.
Public Questions:
44:40 Sean Martin, Stonebond.
47:00 David Frost.
50:10 Russell Forde, Smart Planning.
52:30 Mark Wollner.
55:00 Leonora Wollner.
57:40 Mike Parker, Save Sandford Mill, Chelmsflood.
60:50 Peter Coling.
Councillors:
1:02:45 Cllr Shelley Byrne-Lagrue, Chelmer Village Parish Council.
1:08:20 Cllr Steve Hall, Chelmsford City Council.
1:14:50 Cllr Rose Moore, Chelmsford City Council.
1:20:50 Cllr Foster, Chelmsford City Council.
1:24:20 Officer's response.
1:41:50 Planning Committee Discussion.
2:11:10 Proposal to refuse the application.
2:13:00 Councillors vote to refuse the application.
2:14:00 Decision deferred to next meeting.
Planning permission refused
21st January 2025
At the planning committee we presented our arguments to the Committee. A number of us applied to speak. Fortunately they had scheduled this contentious application, with other less contentious applications, so we were allocated most of time slot available for public questions.
The Planning Officers were dismissive of our concerns about flooding, despite us providing significant hydrometric and photographic evidence that the site floods more frequently than the Environment Agency and the Developer models suggest.
Councillors were more receptive. Some had even witnessed flooding on the site themselves. Cllr Steve Hall said: "I've lived in the area of the Fox & Raven for 32 years... sustained rainfall has an incredible affect on the area... including the site we're talking about. I too have seen it flooded substantially, and taking a long time to disperse aswell...".
However, when the council drafted its motion to reject the application, flooding was not included. Nor was it added when Officers went away and drafted the Council’s formal reasons for refusal, despite them adding a point about Section 106 agreements, showing that they could add points if they wanted to.
So whilst the Council refused the application, their refusal was weaker than it should have been, leaving it open to appeal.