A FARMER has vowed to fight Chelmsford's controversial flood alleviation scheme (FAS) until the "bitter end".
Environment Agency (EA) bosses claim the success of the £12 million project rests upon building a 465-metre long, 3-metre high embankment, sluice gates and a control building on the 100-acre Little Tressells Farm in Margaretting Tye beside the River Wid.
Farm owners Gary and Julie Sharp have challenged the project in the High Court to no avail, but say they will block any further attempts to begin work on the project, which experts say could stop 500 million gallons of water cascading down the Wid and into the River Can, which runs through Central Park and Chelmsford.
"Why should I roll over? It's my land at the end of the day," said 52-year-old father-of-two Mr Sharp, who says Chelmsford City Council is pushing for the "unnecessary" flood scheme so more lucrative property developments, like the Essex County Cricket Club redevelopment, can go ahead.
"They might have a lot of money and a lot of power, but they don't have all the money. I will fight this all the way and take it to the bitter end," he said. "I will not lie down."
As part of proposed work on Mr Sharp's land, a temporary fence would be built cutting through Little Tressells, across the entrance to two of his barns currently under construction, and restricting grazing land for his 800 cattle.
Mr Sharp also manages 350 ewes, half-a-dozen goats and 20 pigs stretching into his neighbouring farm, Fristling Hall, which he has owned since 2002.
He claims the proposed works could leave Fristling Hall and Ingatestone village at risk of flooding.
"If they put the sluice gates in and it floods back to Ingatestone they would flood all of Fristling and up to Little Tressells," he said. "You try and move 800 cattle then. Where are they going to go? There is only so much high ground."
The EA this week said it was hoping to start on the scheme, first mooted more than a decade ago, by this autumn and complete it by September 2015.
The plan has been the subject of ongoing legal wrangling and in February 2013 received planning permission from Chelmsford city councillors.
Mr Sharp, however, submitted a judicial review of the verdict and in December his lawyer Martin Edwards told High Court judge Mr Justice Duncan Ouseley the project invaded his property rights contrary to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
"The FAS will have a severely detrimental impact," said Mr Edwards. "This case involves the gravest of infringements of a citizen's property rights by the state."
While Mr Justice Ouseley rejected their attempt, ordering them to pay a £10,000 contribution to Chelmsford City Council's legal costs, he criticised the EA's approach and refused to award them costs.
The EA claims it can now enter Mr Sharp's land under the Water Resources Act 1991, yet his solicitor sent them a six-page letter disputing that argument in January. The two say they are still awaiting a reply.
They will reject any notices from engineers planning to come onto the land and so could end up in magistrates' court, or once again, in the High Court.
The EA argues the project will eradicate the flood risk to Chelmsford, save £30.8 million in flood damage over 100 years and alleviate 548 homes and 235 businesses from a potential risk.
"It's absolute nonsense, total nonsense," said Mr Sharp.
"This is nothing to do with saving anyone. This is solely for profit for the council by opening up property development.
"Why don't they put the scheme on the council's own land, why not on Hylands Park, why have they chosen the green belt – obviously because it's cheaper – or why not on brownfield sites – because it's down to money again. They would have to purchase it."
Mr Sharp suggests any risk of flooding can be combated by dredging.
"I have done it before and will do it again. What's on my land I will do myself, free of charge," he said.
