Planning Committee B - Wednesday 19 November 2025, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee B
Wednesday, 19th November 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Will Kauffman
  2. Serena Shani
  3. Vivienne Messenger
  4. James Rogers
  5. Yee Cheung
  6. Amanda Apcar
  7. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Serena Shani
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Serena Shani
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mary Dadd
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Kelly Sweeney
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Sue Jones
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Sue Jones
  9. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  10. Cllr Sue Jones
  11. Kelly Sweeney
  12. Cllr Sue Jones
  13. Cllr Clive Amos
  14. Cllr Sue Jones
  15. Cllr Ken Williamson
  16. Cllr Sue Jones
  17. Cllr Mary Dadd
  18. Cllr Sue Jones
  19. Kelly Sweeney
  20. Cllr Sue Jones
  21. Cllr Mary Dadd
  22. Cllr Sue Jones
  23. Cllr Arash Ardakani
  24. Cllr Sue Jones
  25. Cllr Tim Matthews
  26. Cllr Sue Jones
  27. Cllr Martin Morris
  28. Cllr Sue Jones
  29. Kelly Sweeney
  30. Cllr Sue Jones
  31. Kelly Sweeney
  32. Cllr Ken Williamson
  33. Cllr Sue Jones
  34. Cllr Martin Morris
  35. Cllr Sue Jones
  36. Cllr Sue Jones
  37. Kelly Sweeney
  38. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Yee Cheung
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Sue Jones
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Sue Jones
  9. Cllr Barbara Cohen
  10. Cllr Sue Jones
  11. Yee Cheung
  12. Cllr Sue Jones
  13. Cllr Ken Williamson
  14. Cllr Sue Jones
  15. Cllr Mary Dadd
  16. Cllr Sue Jones
  17. Cllr Tim Matthews
  18. Cllr Sue Jones
  19. Cllr Martin Morris
  20. Cllr Sue Jones
  21. James Rogers
  22. Cllr Sue Jones
  23. Cllr Arash Ardakani
  24. Cllr Sue Jones
  25. Cllr Will Kauffman
  26. Cllr Sue Jones
  27. Cllr Tim Matthews
  28. Cllr Sue Jones
  29. Yee Cheung
  30. Cllr Sue Jones
  31. Cllr Will Kauffman
  32. Cllr Sue Jones
  33. Cllr Sue Jones
  34. Cllr Mary Dadd
  35. Cllr Sue Jones
  36. Cllr Ken Williamson
  37. Cllr Sue Jones
  38. Cllr Mary Dadd
  39. Cllr Sue Jones
  40. James Rogers
  41. Cllr Sue Jones
  42. Cllr Mary Dadd
  43. Yee Cheung
  44. James Rogers
  45. Cllr Sue Jones
  46. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. James Rogers
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Sue Jones
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Sue Jones
  9. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  10. Cllr Sue Jones
  11. Cllr Mary Dadd
  12. Cllr Sue Jones
  13. James Rogers
  14. Cllr Sue Jones
  15. Cllr Mary Dadd
  16. James Rogers
  17. Cllr Sue Jones
  18. Cllr Ken Williamson
  19. Cllr Sue Jones
  20. Cllr Will Kauffman
  21. Cllr Clive Amos
  22. Cllr Sue Jones
  23. Cllr Tim Matthews
  24. James Rogers
  25. Cllr Sue Jones
  26. Cllr Tim Matthews
  27. Cllr Sue Jones
  28. Cllr Ken Williamson
  29. Cllr Sue Jones
  30. Cllr Will Kauffman
  31. Cllr Sue Jones
  32. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Sukhi Dhadwar
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Sue Jones
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Sue Jones
  9. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  10. Cllr Sue Jones
  11. Cllr Clive Amos
  12. Cllr Sue Jones
  13. Cllr Mary Dadd
  14. Cllr Sue Jones
  15. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Good evening.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:00:31
Before we start tonight's meeting, I need to read the following webcast announcement.

1 WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION

I would like to remind everyone that this meeting will be filmed live or recorded and
uploaded to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing. Therefore, by participating
in this meeting, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images
and sound recordings. If any public speakers on teams do not wish to have their image captured,
they should ensure that their video setting throughout the meeting is turned off and set to audio only.
Members of the public and speakers, I think our democratic officers have actually spoken to you already about the
details of tonight's meeting and the format of the meeting.
Before I start the meeting, I'd like to just make some introductions
so that you all know the who's who. Okay, I'm Councillor Sue Jones and I am chairing tonight's meeting.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:01:31
And to my right is my vice chair, Councillor Will Hoffman.
And then to his right are members of our Democratic Services team.
Serena Shani - 0:01:37
Vivienne Messenger - 0:01:39
We've got Serena Sharni and Vivian Messenger in the Council Chamber today.
To my left are our planning and legal teams.
James Rogers - 0:01:46
Yee Cheung - 0:01:50
We have James Rogers with us tonight, one of the senior planning officers, and Yi Chung,
a planning officer.
Amanda Apcar - 0:01:55
and then to my far left we have Amanda Apcar who is our legal representation.
We also have planning officers on teams, we have got I think it's Kelly and Suki on
teams.
Right, if I could just reiterate the importance of anybody speaking at tonight's meeting,
the importance of keeping to within your three minute allowance.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:02:20
It does sound short but it's amazing what you can get crammed into three minutes.
At the end of the three minutes there will be an audible buzzer that goes and if you
don't wind up within about 10, 15 seconds of that I will have to interrupt you and ask
you to finish.
It's much better if you can draw your presentation to a natural finish rather than be interrupted.
So please be mindful that we do have to, in the interest of fairness, we do have to keep
very rigidly to that three minutes.
I think that covers items one and two of the agenda.
So I'm going to pass to Vivian for apologies

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

for absence, please.
No, no, sorry.

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Serena Shani - 0:03:08
Councillor Lee sends her apologies.
Thank you and substitute members.

4 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:03:15
Councillor Matthews for Councillor Lee, the whole meeting.
Serena Shani - 0:03:20
Okay, thank you for substituting Councillor Matthews.

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:03:22
Members, have we got any declarations of interest
in any items on tonight's agenda?
No declarations, thank you.

6 MINUTES

We turn now to item six, the minutes.
Councillor Dadd, I think you have got a query
on the minutes.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:03:42
Yes, item 13, EPF 0561, 25 years ago.
unit for Banson's yard, there is a correction needed.
It was resolved that we would be, we were refusing it,
but it does say contrary to adopted
Onger Town Council neighbourhood plan,
and it should read the adopted Onger neighbourhood plan,
and the policy should be ONG -CT3,
which is transport and movement.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:04:21
Right, so it's CT3 instead of the current CG3.
Thank you, and actually that refers
to Essex parking standards,
but I think generally you don't mention anything in that.
It's been checked out and that's absolutely,
and I think correctly you're also suggesting
that we actually put the Onward Neighbourhood Plan
2020 to 2033.
Well, it's more correct.
Exactly, it is full title.
and the title of the policy. Thank you very much.
Members, are we all ready with that?
I was going to say it is to make sure it's absolutely correct.
Thank you, members.
OK. With that amendment, members,
is everybody happy to agree those minutes?
Thank you.
Right. In that case, we can move on to our first item on tonight's agenda.

7 EPF/0863/25 - 30 Bridge Hill and Land to the Rear, Epping, CM16 4ER

This is item 7, EPF0863 stroke 25 at 30 Bridge Hill and Land to the rear in Epping CM16 4ER.
And this is going to be presented by Kelly on Teams I think.
Good evening Kelly.
Good evening Chair.
Kelly Sweeney - 0:05:36
agenda item seven relates to 30 Bridge Hill and land to the rear which forms part of an
allocated site within the adopted local plan for residential development. The proposal
is for demolition of number 30 Bridge Hill and the construction of nine new dwellings.
Before I commence my presentation there are two amendments to the published committee
report. The first is that Essex County Council Ecology have removed their holding objection
following the receipt of new BNG calculations.
And the second relates to the Highways Impact section
of the report.
The details set out in paragraph two of this section
are incorrect and the paragraph should read as follows.
The site is identified as having a good level
of sustainable transport connectivity
within the ECC parking standards.
When applying the standards
falling within moderate connectivity range,
two off street parking spaces per dwelling plus two visitor spaces should be provided,
a total of 20. A total of 19 spaces is proposed within the site. However, when taking into
account the demolition of number 30, which does not have formal off street parking, the
overall quantum of parking for this proposed development would be in accordance with ECC
standards. Turning to the presentation. So here we have
an aerial view of the site which is contained within the red line.
To the north we have residential streets, Irish and East Road and Bridge Hill.
The land to the south and southeast currently comprises of open fields.
To the east is further residential development and the railway line
and to the west is also residential in character.
I'll take members through some photographs.
So the first two photos, top and bottom on the left hand side are taken from Bridge Hill.
The other two photographs show the site within the site, the red line.
And these next two photos are taken within the wider site allocation.
As you can see it's mainly open fields.
So moving on to some background on this application.
As previously stated, this site forms part of a wider allocated site within the adopted
local plan.
The main requirements of which are to provide a minimum of 450 new homes, a new primary
school, shared community facilities and a SAN.
As part of the site allocation, a strategic master plan and design code have been produced
which were formally endorsed by the council earlier this year.
The master plan is to be delivered by four separate developers.
Most of the development would be brought forward by Barwood Homes and Bellway with two smaller
pockets of development being delivered by land vest and the applicant for this current
application.
So moving forward to the proposed development, here we have the layout of the proposal for
the nine new dwellings.
Members will note that each house has adequate separation and good level of immunity space.
Here we have a slide that shows indicative street elevations of plot 2 to 5 and plot
6 to 9.
Here we have some indicative views of the proposed development, views from the site
entrance, view looking at plots 1, 8 and 9 and views from the top of the site and a view
looking from the public footpath.
And lastly, this is an indicative view of the proposal from northwest.
The development forms parts of an allocated site and it's considered that the development
is in accordance with the associated master plan design code.
The houses are well designed and the quantum of parking is in accordance with ACC standards.
Approval of the application is therefore recommended and a request that any amendments to section
106 are delegated to officers. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, we have three
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:09:54
speakers on this. Our first speaker is Ella Reven. Good evening. Yes, if you press the
little button, that's lovely. Thank you. Okay, good evening committee. I'm speaking
Public Speaker - 0:10:01
as the direct neighbour most affected by this proposal. My concerns fall into four main
areas, amenity and safety, access, demolition impact and overdevelopment, plus the lack
of communication we've had from the applicant.
Amenity and safety, the development introduces new windows facing our home, meaning a clear
loss of privacy and increased security risks.
Bringing buildings closer will reduce daylight to our rooms, overshadow our garden and create
a much more enclosed environment.
Our garden is one of the only private outdoor spaces our children have and it would now
be overlooked from several units.
Our insurance costs could be negatively impacted too.
More cars so close to our boundary raises our exposure to air pollution
and will also face light pollution from vehicle lights and security lighting.
Poorly planned bin storage could lead to odour and vermin problems.
There are risks to shared structures on our property,
chimney stacks, roof connexions and sound insulation
and our home could be exposed to weather or vibration damage during works.
Construction traffic will cause dust, noise, blocked access
and potential damage to the road and pavement that sit directly against our
external wall. Our energy costs would increase. Noise overall will increase
significantly. Nine additional households, more cars and the foot and cycle traffic
from the South Epping development using the path behind our home. Hundreds of
people a week could pass our boundary, increasing disturbance and
security concerns. Extra cars will also worsen congestion on an already busy
road making it harder and more dangerous to access our driveway.
Access. It's still unclear why alternative access routes haven't been fully pursued.
A different approach could reduce harm and even increase housing numbers without compromising
the character of the existing cottages. Demolition. Has a construction management plan been submitted
and if so, where is it? How will noise and dust be kept within safe limits for a household
with three young children during demolition and construction.
Loss of a liveable dwelling.
The chosen access removes an existing cottage
and leaves a net gain of only eight homes.
A different access solution could preserve the cottage
and deliver nine.
Overdevelopment.
Nine homes on this constrained plot
reduce remaining green habitat for local wildlife
and further erode the quiet character of this part of Epping.
It also increases traffic pressure
around Ivy Chimneys School.
Finally, the process itself has been incredibly difficult.
We first learned of this through a brochure 18 months ago and despite promises we've had no meaningful communication from the developer.
I'm caring for my mother after surgery whilst raising three children
and it's impossible to keep up with the more than 130 documents on the portal let alone the
council policies. The burden has fallen entirely on us even though the consequences for our home, well -being and children's future are significant.
I ask the committee to consider the scale of these impacts and the avoidable harm this
proposal would cause to our amenity, safety and quality of life.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:13:01
The second speaker is Councillor McCready from the Epping Town Council.
Good evening Councillor McCready.
Thank you very much Madam Chairman.
Public Speaker - 0:13:09
You will have read the report of Epping Town Council which I will not repeat in my three
it's slot. I hope people read it. You also have received the report from the Epping Society plus
several other objections. If I've read this correctly do we have a transport statement?
My understanding is that Bridge Hill is considered moderately busy. Yes, most of the time except rush
hours and school drop -off and pick -up times when it is total chaos with potentially 20 more vehicles
exiting the proposed site this will only add to the already almost impossible situation.
Bridge Hill is narrow, if you haven't yet visited it may I suggest that you do so. It is steep
and twisting with a narrow low bridge on a tight bend at the bottom and a junction with centre
drive at the top of the hill and a primary school just beyond. We have as yet, and I'm working on it,
No safe crossing spaces. Visibility exiting the proposed site will be limited,
which will add to potential dangers. It mentions cycling. I look forward to hearing more about this.
It's not safe. Apparently moneys are to be spent on train timetables, but the central line already
struggles to cope with capacity, so we can have timetables but is the train line going to cope?
These are family homes which we welcome where one presumes there will be children.
To those comments from the head teacher at Ivy Chimneys Primary School, the local schools are
mostly full and the local roads are already very busy. It mentions in the report something about
adding a new primary school. I think these are just words. Thank you. Thank you. And our final
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:15:13
speaker on this application is the agent James Firth. Good evening. Thank you and good evening.
My name is James Firth from Syrris Properties speaking on behalf of the applicant Mount Street
Public Speaker - 0:15:25
Developments. The application before you tonight has been the subject to a long process of close
working with planning officers, consultees and the wider community, including engagement
with residents through the master plan exhibition. As you will be aware, the site is allocated
in the adopted local plan for residential development, forming part of the South Epping
master plan area. Although the site is a small part of the allocated area, our client has
engaged in the process of the master plan, including ensuring that the route for the
important walking and cycling link through the site is safeguarded as part of the proposals.
Although of a small site of nine units, the proposals provide for a mix of types of units,
including two, three, four and five bedroom properties. The existing property at number
30 will be demolished as part of the scheme with an improved six metre wide shared access
provided in line with ECC and design guide requirements. Party wall issues are of course
outside of the formal planning process. However, the applicant has committed to engage with
structural engineers and solicitors on the party wall to ensure there are no unacceptable
impacts. The site is in a sustainable location and the parking as discussed with officers
is in line with planning policy and includes visitor parking provision. The application
is supported by a detailed transport statement, which is on the public portal application
file, including tracking, and there is no objection from Essex Highways.
Notwithstanding the minor category of application, our client has also engaged with officers
on the Section 106 Heads of Terms linked to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
This will provide contributions towards improvements to local infrastructure, including transport,
health, education, libraries, SAC mitigation and biodiversity net gain monitoring.
The proposals have been supported by ecology and BNG reports and safeguard the Brook to
the south of the site through a no -build zone, which will provide for landscape and biodiversity
improvements.
In summary, the site is allocated in the local plan and although small scale, forms an important
first stage in the delivery of homes as part of the South Epping allocation.
The site will make an important contribution towards housing on a sustainably located site
and we would respectfully request
that you grant planning permission
in line with your officer recommendations.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:17:58
Members, before I open it up for discussion,
I'm just going to ask if any of the ward members
actually want to say anything.
Councillor John Whitehouse.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, time's short,
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:18:08
so I'll try not to repeat comments made already,
although I've got sympathy with a lot of them.
However, I do want to emphasise residents' justified concerns about the road and traffic
along Brook Road, Bridge Hill and Ivory Chimneys.
As those members who attended the site visit will have seen, it is a congested area, heavily
parked, obstructed pavements, and the access isn't far from the Brava Hill and cars coming
up particularly from Brook Road do have poor visibility.
So I do hope members pay careful attention to that.
And one of the issues with the master plan and design code is because about the internal layout of the
The site they don't really address the wider highways highways issues
The section 106 has been mentioned the contributions to infrastructure
and clearly that is
Fundamental. I mean the whole site depends, you know, on the delivery of the infrastructure to support it. I
Note that this is sort of for agreement
after depending on the decision that members make.
I do want a bit more clarity on the sequencing and delivery of that.
I mean, clearly, if other parts of the site go ahead, that could take a long time.
We don't want to be in a position where we're waiting for the whole site to be complete
before some of the infrastructure development, infrastructure issues are delivered.
And I can see why you need to get all the money together for a school, but, you know,
some of the sort of issues to the transport and so forth,
it seems to me could be progressed,
you know, as soon as enough money's in the pot.
And similarly, it's not clear why some infrastructure,
there's a 2 % contribution
because this is 2 % of the allocation,
but that doesn't apply to affordable housing.
I mean, affordable housing seems to be
to be as much as sort of a bit of infrastructure
as some of the other issues that we're talking about.
And I don't quite understand
whether it's been singled out as not being required.
Could I ask about the construction management plan?
It is a very constrained site.
It's not a place that's easy to get large vehicles down.
There are neighbours in very close proximity.
I see there's a condition about construction management
in the recommended conditions,
but I would like to hear a bit more about that.
It's a long time since this site was first discussed.
I spoke not to a full council as far back to 2017
and examination in public when the number came down
from 900 odd to 450.
I'm still not convinced taking this out the green belt
was the best way of delivering the district's housing need.
But I hope the members take into account those points
when they make the decision.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:20:57
Before we move on, is there anybody who can
just give us a bit more information
about the construction management plan?
I just wanted to give you a bit more information about any construction management planning
that has been put in place.
Kelly Sweeney - 0:21:27
There is a condition seeking construction management plan which is a standard condition
that we would require for development of the skill and details would be submitted by the
applicant prior to commencement of the development and we would liaise with Essex
County Council Highways to ensure that there would be as little impact on
nearby residents and traffic as possible during the construction phase of the
development. Okay thank you. Right members opening it up to you for discussion we
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:22:04
have got a recommendation to approve with conditions.
Councillor Ramos.
Cllr Clive Amos - 0:22:09
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Unfortunately, I was unable to go to the site visit.
I always seem to be on a Mondays,
and I can never make Mondays.
Nevertheless, I am very familiar with the area.
I do know it quite well.
And I have, of course, studied all the papers
that have been submitted, extensive papers on this.
I have to say, as I was reading it, I began to feel more and more claustrophobic.
When I was looking at the plans, I mean, I accept, yes, this is an area for development.
It is approved for development.
I'm not querying that.
But it seemed to me that there were far too many structures crammed into a very small
area.
I also know, and this is a problem which is going to affect us in the future, the access
roads around there are barely adequate as it is.
I mean if you're coming from the Ivey Chimneys direction, well Ivey Chimneys doesn't really
have a road, it has a car park for which you have to negotiate.
And there's still quite a lot at the end of Centre Drive as well which are parked.
But so that there's something that we're going to have to address at some point regarding
the access roads.
I wasn't too happy with the width of the access into this site after the demolition of the
house of the ones that are left standing there.
I also noticed that it was said it's within walking distance of Epping Station and the
High Road.
Well, everything is within walking distance, no matter where you go,
providing you're fit enough and you can walk enough.
And I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration to say it was within walking distance.
To be fair, it didn't say it was within easy walking distance.
I don't oppose this in principle,
but I do think it's overdevelopment for what it is.
And if they came back with fewer dwellings there,
I would probably be taking a different view. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other members? Councillor Williamson. Thank you chair.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:24:25
Yeah the site is very well known to me it is part of the allocated site and
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:24:30
when we start talking about school timings and the construction of a new
school this is nine dwellings out of 450. I think we're conflating two different
things here. I've read it all carefully, I've looked at all the plans, I've been
through everything that is in front of us to make a decision and I go really to
the final statement by officers which says overall there are no policy grounds
to resist and I'm minded to agree with that. I can't see any reason on an
chance of refusing this or coming up with a different scheme I'm happy to
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:25:18
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:25:23
support it. Thank you. Councillor Dadd. Thank you Chairman. I know the area well and
obviously was at the site visit. My concern really is that particular road
and the parking issues. It's already difficult for people to find somewhere
to park and having two, three, four and five bedroomed homes, the minimum parking standard
is two plus 0 .25 for visitor spaces rounded up, which I calculate to be 21. Bearing in
mind four bedroomed and five bedroomed are likely to have teenagers at home who also
have got transport.
It is not within walking distance of the high street.
It's classed as good connectivity,
but overall when you look at the Essex Parking Standards
guidance for numbers, it comes under moderate.
And it says quite clearly,
below the minimum standards could be considered
where a developer can demonstrate the trips will be
by modes other than car, and there will be less demand for parking.
And developers should ensure that their sites achieve parking levels envisaged.
Now, I brought this up at the site visitors, as the chairman knows,
and for belatedly, highways to say,
it's OK to reduce it by a couple.
It's not, because that is the minimum,
and I think that is a recipe for disaster.
You're taking away a space where people could park in front of the house that's going to be demolished anyway.
And I can't walk far and I had to park further down the road and somebody had to give me a lift up there.
So I think that is, that was in the day before a lot of people come home.
And I think that initially this plan, looking at things, did have 21, which was the minimum standard, parking standard.
Bearing in mind it is minimum and I think we should go back to them and say there is plenty of space there and it's very nice.
Personally I like the designs. I think the way they've done the wildlife corridor round by the brook is very pleasant.
But it's pie in the sky to think people are not going to use cars and I think I will not be voting for it. Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:27:54
Thank you. I must say at this juncture that the site visit was extremely useful and indeed
thank the agents for turning out to help us with that site visit. I think it was rather
useful that we actually clashed with school pick -up time, so we probably did see it at
its normal worse. Any other members? Councillor Daki first and then... Oh, sorry, thank you.
Oh sorry, can I go to the Planning Officer first, thank you. Sorry Kelly.
Thank you Chair, just coming there, just if I may on a couple of the points that Councillor Dadda made.
Kelly Sweeney - 0:28:30
So the applicant is aware that obviously Councillors were concerned about the quantum of parking.
Just to note that first of all in terms of the relevant policy for the site allocation
and also the wider sort of objectives of the council, there is a requirement to sort of
draw a balance between the need for parking and also promoting more sustainable modes
of transport.
The applicant actually contacted Essex County Council today with a potential change to the
plans to include an additional couple of bays and Essex County Council actually confirmed
that that would be contrary to policy because they are adding more and more visitor bays
when it is not necessary.
It is considered that this is a sustainable location.
And note that there isn't any guidance on the parking standards for sites with good connectivity.
It's either very high, moderate or poor.
But I would argue that even if there isn't a loss of one bay in this instance,
the quantum of development and the requirements sits between that high and
moderate so I think bearing in mind the requirements of the endorsed master plan
our policies are by promoting sustainable modes of transport the
quantum of development the quantum of parking sorry is is completely
acceptable and policy compliant. Thank you. Thank you thank you and I think
Councillor Dadd, do you want us to come back on that?
Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:30:17
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:30:18
It's something I've looked into.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Yes, it's something I've looked into about parking
and I'll go back to say these are minimum parking standards
and we're arguing here about whether it's below minimum.
If you provide more,
that is not against any parking standards at all
as long as you're providing the right sizes.
But this is the minimum there should be
and I don't know which office she's spoken to,
but I would actually contradict that
from what is actually written and what we looked at
when we were doing neighbourhood plan.
Thank you.
There does seem to be some discrepancy,
but I think what the planning officer was saying
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:30:58
is that Essex County Council have come back
and said that it wouldn't actually then fit
sustainability criteria with those additional spaces.
Councillor Adekani, I think you said.
Cllr Arash Ardakani - 0:31:13
In terms of the overdevelopment, I agree with my committee colleagues that the actual scheme
with the numbers, it seems to be more than basically the plot can take and also in terms
of the parking space, definitely it needs to have more so on that basis I would not
be supporting the scheme as it is.
Thank you.
Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:31:39
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:31:42
I have been a substitute, wasn't able to attend the site visit, but thankfully know it very
well and have spent many a frustrating journey trying to navigate that stretch of road.
So I know exactly what the difficulties would be.
This is a very difficult one we're faced with here as a committee because fundamentally,
and we're going to see this more and more as the local plan rolls out across the district.
There are developments that are going to be very unpopular but policy compliant and we
are tasked with the impossible position of being in the middle of that and we need to
remember what our position is, is the judge is it contrary to policy or not. If we go
down the route of trying to fight against something that is policy compliant, we will
be just costing the council and the taxpayers money at appeals that we will lose. So it's
a very difficult one because with all of these, there's a very human element to it. And we've
heard from the speaker this evening, the human impact this is going to have. So we need to
to be very sympathetic to that, but we also have to be realistic to whether a development
is policy compliant or not. My personal opinion on this and reading the background on it,
it is compliant and I don't think there is any grounds we can refuse this application.
My contribution would be, especially after what we've just heard from the officer, that
the developer appears to show willing to add additional parking, I would very much suggest
we perhaps add that as an informative maybe to say that that would be desirable so that
we can at least work on minimising the negative impact because as Councillor Dabst said, people
will be driving cars. There's a lot of this sustainability talk and the reality, it never
matches what the projections are.
People will have cars and then they will park on the road
and they will create dangers and they will create
more chaos and more traffic issues.
So if the developer is minded to instal
some additional parking spaces and minimise that
impact on the neighbourhood, I think that's the very least
we can do as a council when looking at policy
compliant application to put that as an,
I know we can't condition that obviously,
but if we can put it as an informative, I think that would be one small help in this situation.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:34:30
Thank you. And as I say, the applicant's agent is here in the chamber, so hopefully they will be
able to take that on board and the minutes will reflect that. Councillor Morris. Thank you,
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:34:44
Chairman. Yeah, I did have a couple of points to make. Firstly, I mean, I agree. I mean, the biggest,
Okay, this is a small part of a very large development.
There's going to be over 400 homes in this area.
So I think, and it's, as previously mentioned,
it's policy compliant, but I did have some questions
about the ECC highways have no objections to this,
which means that fundamentally they think
that the additional traffic is not going to be a problem.
But it does say, can the planning officer expand
a little bit on what their conditions will be?
it does say subject to conditions.
And I wasn't quite sure what the impact of those conditions
would be in ameliorating the problem or the possible issues
with traffic.
And the other question I had around this was,
there's no mention of EV charging in all of this.
And I had understood that we would apply or we would make
sure that all dwellings had an EV charging capability.
So if we could just get an answer to those two questions,
that would be great.
Thank you.
Thank you. I'll hand over to the Planning Officer.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:35:47
Kelly Sweeney - 0:35:53
Thank you, Chair. In terms of the charging points, if members feel that a condition requiring
EV charging points is required, then by all means we can look at adding that condition.
In terms of the conditions, the conditions are around making sure that the e -visibility
for displays are adequate and there's a condition around the provision of travel
packs and there's obviously planning obligations there as well. For
example they're providing financial contribution towards real -time public
transport updates and so that's it's just it's the basic conditions that
highways normally request about maintaining the access and the
visibility, civillies, etc. Thank you. So if you just repeat what you said about
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:36:45
Kelly Sweeney - 0:36:47
the EV charging. I didn't catch that, sorry. Yeah sure. If members would like to add a condition requiring EV charging points for the parking, I can't see any reason why we couldn't add a condition to that effect.
okay thank you. Councillor Williamson. Thank you chair and thank you
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:37:09
Councillor Morris for pointing out the EV charging points I totally agree it
should be conditioned and while we're talking about conditions I believe
condition 13 is duplicated in condition 14. It looks exactly the same to me. It is
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:37:32
indeed it's a complete double copy yeah thank you okay any other comments before
we start talking about additional conditions okay members and it has been
suggested that we could put an additional condition for EV charging
points to be included is anybody wanting to propose put that as a proposal
Councillor Morris yeah I'm prepared and seconded by Councillor Williamson thank
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:37:54
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:37:56
Members, are you all happy that there is
an additional condition to be placed
if planning permission is granted
that EV charging points should be installed?
Thank you.
Presumably planning office will give you the right number.
Yeah, we can see that. Thank you.
Okay, members, I think we need to take this to the vote.
The officer recommendation is to prove,
subject to the conditions listed in your report alongside that additional
condition we have just agreed could those in favour of approval please show
Five, Chair. Thank you. And those against?
Four, Chair. And abstentions?
Zero. Okay. Thank you. In that case, planning
information is granted. Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:39:02
Kelly Sweeney - 0:39:15
Apologies, Chair. Can I comment if I may? Just to double cheque that members are happy to delegate minor changes to section 106 to officers.
Just given the complexities of the site around the four developers, we thought that this might be a good idea.
We have voted.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:39:36
I am sorry if I do apologise if I didn't see you indicating prior to the vote.
I apologise.
I think we can note that.
It has been noted.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, moving on to item 8.

8 EPF/2294/24 - Land And Garages On The North Side Of, Avondale Close, Loughton, IG10 3DH

Moving on to item 8, this is the land and garages on the north side of Avondale Close in Loughton.
It is EPF 2294 stroke 24 and the it is you presenting this application. Thank you.
Thank You chairman and good evening members. The application that's in front
Yee Cheung - 0:40:41
of us this evening is for the demolition of the existing garages row block up
garages, as you can see here, and to demolish it but one and to replace it with a two -storey
semi -detached dwelling.
So the application is to the north end of Averdale Close, and you can see it's from
The aerial photos is all hard standing here,
and the row of garages here.
And then surrounding the site, as you can see,
it's all residential properties along,
this is Avondale Drive, and then this is,
sorry, and over here is Elmhurst Way,
properties backing onto the site.
Here we have the proposed block plan.
Again showing the distance where the dwellings, the semi -attached dwellings are positioned.
It's about one metre from the shared boundary of Avondale Drive.
And it's sighted approximately three metres away from the flank wall of 6 and 7 Avondale Close.
Here we have the cross section of the dwellings.
As you can see, we've got the single storey element here, and then that first floor level
it's been reduced in depth.
And then you've got the forward projection of approximately 1 .5 metres.
Here we have the elevational drawings of the proposed development.
And then here we have is the front elevations, flank elevations and the ground cross section
and the street scene of how high is it adjacent to number six and seven, Avondale close.
Here we have the proposed floor plans of the semi -attached dwelling.
As you can see, here is the single storey element and then the dwelling is reduced in
depth and it will be more in line with number six and seven Avondale Close.
Here we have the site plans.
It's not site plans, sorry, officer photographs.
Apologies.
Here we have the rows of lock -up garages and you can see the area of hard standing.
Next door there's number six and seven open door close.
Below here is the flank wall of the labouring property.
Then again this is view of the application sites standing on the end of the drive.
Again, this is a series of photographs, officer photographs.
This one on the left is taken standing at the back of the site and taken to the south.
And again, this is the property to the south.
Here we have some more photographs of the site.
These photos were taken standing in the neighbouring
the garden of number six and seven.
So you could get sort of the view
and how the new build will relate to these dwellings.
And this photo is taken at the rear of property number 78,
Avondale Drive, looking towards the application site.
You can see the distance and how it will be in line with number six and seven in the distance.
The officer concludes that the development is acceptable in this location because it
is sustainable in a sustainable urban location.
The development is on previously developed land,
as we can see just now.
This application is a resubmission following
a recent refusal of a development on this site.
And the officer considered that this submission
is an improved development.
There's no impact on residential amenity,
no objection from highways,
is no objection from land drainage team and the officer recommends approval subject to
conditions. And here we have the application that was previously refused on this site and
members can see that the scale of the development and when compared to the current application
and it's significantly reduced in size, bulk, depth,
et cetera, yeah.
And this was the floor plan of the previous scheme as well.
That's it, thank you, Chairman.
Lovely, thank you very much indeed.
We have three speakers on this item.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:46:24
Firstly, an objector, Sarah Mackey.
Good evening.
Good evening, thank you.
I speak on behalf of a large number of local residents who strongly object to this proposed
development.
Public Speaker - 0:46:33
Whilst we appreciate the need for housing, our objections raise serious and legitimate
concerns.
We are deeply concerned about the loss of light, outlook, privacy, extreme overlooking
and the overbearing and inappropriate design being proposed.
Three previous applications for this site were refused, two of which were smaller than
this.
The last was rejected as an incongruous and cramped form of development, out of character,
too high and too close to neighbouring boundaries.
It was judged unneighbourly, harmful and with no material benefit outweighing that harm.
Yet the bulk and mass for this latest plan is almost identical and is under 12 .5 % smaller.
It remains unneighbourly and attempts to squeeze an absurdly large building into a small site,
which would be a complete overdevelopment of the area.
The footprint still brings a structure right up against the gardens of surrounding properties
and is only one metre from the boundary fences.
These are small gardens and impact would be severe.
Our homes will be overshadowed, natural light drastically reduced and windows will look
directly into bedrooms.
It is only one metre from the boundary of numbers 6 and 7 Avondale Close where existing
entrances would be adversely affected.
Flooding and drainage remain a serious risk.
Local gardens and the surrounding area flood regularly,
and Thames Water confirm that the sewage systems here
are failing and overwhelmed of existing critical faults.
The proposed gardens are too small.
Air -sourced heat pumps will be noisy and unsightly,
and loss of garages will deprive residents
of essential parking and storage.
There are also serious concerns that a risk assessment
hasn't been carried out regarding the access to the close
during construction, which only has a very narrow
entrance and exit.
Professionals assessing this plan describe themselves as just about satisfied or as reluctantly agreeing.
This proposal leaves them feeling apprehensive for good reason.
The Planning Officer has provided no justification for changing their previous view.
Width and depth remain almost identical and shoehorning this large site into such a cramped space
While we do understand the pressure to meet housing targets, we plead with you to carefully
consider this.
The developer is proposing two two bedroom houses.
This site is much better suited to a three bedroom bungalow, only one bedroom smaller
or a single house.
Approving a future application of a scaled back nature would mitigate most of the residents'
concerns.
and we plead with you to refuse this application so that something more suitable can be considered.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:49:18
Thank you very much indeed. Our next speaker is from Loutentown Council,
Councillor Wicksley. Good evening. Nice to be back in the Council
Public Speaker - 0:49:30
Chamber. I have only got three minutes so I could probably speak all night on this particular
application but I'll just try and keep it as brief as I can within the three
minutes. I'd like to draw members attention to the residential amenity
which is referred to on page 33 of your agenda this evening. Amongst other things
it says the council expects a proposal to avoid loss of light and not result in
overbearing impact. As regards the overbearing impact on the rear of
of numbers 74, 76 and 78 and 80 Avondale Drive,
and in particular numbers 76 and 78,
I believe there would be a substantial impact
as a result of a large flank wall
of the proposed development,
which will be at the end of their gardens.
It'll be a very dominant feature,
and I believe it will seriously detract
from the enjoyment of their gardens.
The loss of light, I believe, will affect properties in particular in the almost way,
probably particularly in the afternoon sunshine, a little bit of which we got today, but particularly
in the summer, so I think there's a shadowing or over -shadowing issue.
My conclusion on this is that a two -storey development isn't suitable for this site.
If garage sites lend themselves to housing developments at all, I think it should be
restricted to single storey development, which could well be acceptable and certainly more
suitable and have less impact on the neighbours.
As regards to flood risk, I have read what has been said about this in the report very
carefully.
It's referred to on page 34 in conditions 11 on page 40 and 12 and 13 on page 41.
The problem with this flood risk assessment, as reported, is that it's quite technical.
I would have much preferred something that could be in layman's language, which the
residents could understand, because clearly there is concern about flooding, as the Speaker
previous to me as explained. And at one point it makes reference to to amazing
well that won't mean much to people living Avondale Drive in Loughton. The
third point I'd like to make is on landscaping which is referred to on page
35 and again in condition 6 on page 39. I welcome the fact there's going to be
some soft landscaping with, I believe, a planting of a tree
and native vegetation, which I think is very good.
But what doesn't appear to be in the conditions
is who's gonna be responsible for ongoing maintenance.
So I believe there should be a clear definition of that.
I did have one other point,
it looks like I've run out of time.
If I did hear a bell, I think, unless I'm hearing things.
I will leave it at that unless I am allowed to ask my other question.
Not at the moment.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:52:49
Sorry, we have to keep to that three minutes as you know.
Hopefully some other people might raise those points.
Our final speaker is the applicant, James Howlett.
Good evening, Chair, members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Public Speaker - 0:53:07
This application proposes the redevelopment of a disused garage court containing 14 asbestos
roof garages and a large, imperable forecourt.
The site currently provides no community benefit, and the development will replace it with two
high -quality, energy -efficient family homes that remove asbestos, improve drainage and
make sustainable use of the brownfield land in line with both local and national housing
policies.
We recognise that neighbours have raised a number of concerns and I would like to address
these clearly.
First, privacy overlooking and light.
The homes have been designed with careful window placement, the use of obscure glazing
where required and fully compliant separation distances.
A professional daylight and sunlight assessment confirms that the scheme causes no unacceptable
overshadowing and remains comfortably within BRE guidance. Landscaping and
design measures also prevent any harmful overlooking to gardens. On matters of
scale and design the scheme has been materially revised since the previous
refusal, some 30 % in reduction of footprint. The massing has been reduced
and articulated and the layout adjusted so the development is not overbearing or
dominant. Garden sizes now meet required amenity standards and internal layouts
exceed national space standards, ensuring high -quality accommodation.
Concerns have also been raised about parking noise from heat pumps and flooding.
Parking meets local standards by way of four spaces provided in the scheme and is supported
by sustainable travel measures.
The proposed low -noise heat pumps are modern, screened and fully compliant with noise regulations.
A full flood risk assessment confirms that although the site lies in flood zone 2, the
is low probability, fluval, not surface water related.
Finished floor levels sit above modelled flood levels and such drainage will reduce run -off
compared with the existing hard surfacing, which by the way is 100 % impermeable with
either hard surfacing or garages.
Some neighbours have referenced historical informal use of the land for parking access
or bin storage.
While this may have occurred, it does not create legal rights and cannot affect a planning
decision.
Similarly, claims of rights of way have been fully checked against Land Registry and historical
legal correspondence, which confirm that the applicant is the sole legal owner and that
no rights of access exist.
In summary, this is a policy -compliant, environmentally responsible redevelopment that transforms
a disused, asbestos -containing garage site into two sustainable family homes.
It protects neighbour amenity, improves drainage, supports the Council's housing strategy,
and contributes positively to the local area.
I respectfully request that members support
this well -designed and carefully considered application.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:56:03
Members, I will turn to any ward members
prior to opening up discussion.
Councillor Cohen.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Cllr Barbara Cohen - 0:56:15
You can seat it if you want.
I prefer to stand.
Good evening, Chair, and other members
of the Planning Committee.
I am the District Councillor representing Buckersdale and Buckersdale East and Whitebridge
and also I sit on the Planning Committee A. There have been 27 objections from concerned
constituents in Avondale Drive and Elmhost Way and I stand with them to voice my opposition
application to this planning application for the construction of two bedroomed houses and
one study semi -detached houses.
On site there have been two previous applications, one for flats and one for houses that were
refused. They were refused because of bulk scale and proximity of development to other
homes that were deemed unacceptable. This application is of very little difference in
size to the last one that was rejected.
How would any resident feel if two houses were built just behind their garden fence
at the bottom of their modest sized garden? A two -storey flank wall being the side of
one of the houses would be the view together with a gable roof on top of it.
This is the proposition of the developer and this is the scenario of the resident
that lives at number 78 Avondale Drive and our speaker this evening. She bought
a home with a garden that would have sunlight not a shadow from a new home.
She bought a home with the outlook of green spaces, not a brick wall.
Not only a brick wall but a double storey brick wall with a roof on top.
It does however not only affect her but many of the surrounding homes.
As far as I can understand, view and outlook are planning terms that are sometimes used
incorrectly.
but our resident can no longer look out of a window at a reasonable distance without feeling oppressed or dominated by a new structure.
Each of these existing houses in Avondale Close and Elwood Gardens have some land around them.
They are stepped back. They have land, the new houses do not have land
around them. They are not stepped back. Very importantly we do not have a
drawing of the new proposed houses and the existing homes that surround it. Is it
higher, bulkier or wider than surrounding neighbouring houses? We currently do not
know. The drawings are provided do not show the the clarity making it impossible to evaluate
the proposal. Building a new structure right against a boundary in this establishment setting
risks a significant loss of privacy and potential overshadowing for our long -standing residents.
The flooding of the land proposed for the new houses is also an issue. This part of
Loughton often floods. The fields behind the flood and the garages flood. The area repeatedly
floods despite being classified as a median risk of flooding. As shown in the photographs
that was distributed by the resident at number 78, Avondale Drive. Her lawn is covered in
water after heavy rain. Residents repeatedly report that the existing drainage system are
already barely fit for purpose under current use and with two more houses with four new
bathrooms this issue would become even more of a problem. The proposed new houses are
literally placed as an analogy like a fish in a bowl, the fish being the new house and
the bowl being the established houses around it. We must ensure that any new development
respects the local context and does not negatively impact the quality of life for existing residents.
I urge the committee to defer a decision until the drawing discrepancy is
resolved and a thorough assessment of the boundary impact are constructed
and conducted. Of course we understand the need for newly built housing but
locations have to be correct. This is a perfect place for a bungalow which are
much needed in London. Can we therefore defer this application when we can see
plans of the proposed new build in relation to all the existing established houses nearby.
Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:01:39
back to you. Thank you, thank you Councillor, thank you Chairman. So regarding to the existing
Yee Cheung - 1:02:09
dwellings, as you can see that the built, the proposed dwelling and it's slightly lower
than the ridge of number six and seven of neighbouring property and I don't know whether
was that your concern? So I'm assuming that you're looking for a cross -section
Okay.
Members, you just mentioned about the size and the bulk and the mass of the units.
So if I just scroll back, so what we have here on the last application that was
previously refused, you can see the the depth of the dwellings has been
reduced, particularly to the rear, and now it's a single -storey element and
there's no longer that first floor addition because it's been reduced and
and there's no dormer windows and if you could and also the proposal then was
above the ridge of the existing number seven sorry above the neighbouring
property so that's been brought down and therefore we considered that is
significantly reduced in bulk scale height mass
The first diagram on the first chart, you can see a picture of St Ross.
Why are we engaging with a non -member of the committee?
Look at the site plan.
Is that the one you're referring to?
No, no. The first diagram.
I'm going to go back to that first slide because I think it's an aerial photograph.
Sorry, I don't understand.
I don't understand.
The first slide of the presentation.
Is that the one you are referring to?
We are just trying to clarify exactly the point you are making.
So, but, yes, I think you're referring to the one on the report.
Yes.
Right, thank you.
Thank you.
All right, I just, we need to move on to a discussion and I'm sure members might pick
that up.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:05:56
Members, I am going to now move on to the discussion of the item.
We have a recommendation in front of us to approve subject to conditions.
Councillor Williamson.
Thank you, chair.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:06:11
It is one I have looked at very carefully.
I must say when the previous application came in I was absolutely horrified at the amount
of development on that site.
So it is quite easy for somebody to come back with a revised scheme and say it is less than
the previous one.
I think the other one was outrageous and was rightly refused.
This one is slightly different.
I understand the footprint is incredibly simple.
I take footprint as ground floor level, not the total floor space in the development.
And it is incredibly similar to the previous one.
Somebody mentioned shoehorning, which I had already written down before they said it.
Funny enough, the current site is, as the applicant said,
100 % hard surfaces.
So any small amount of immediate space garden
does actually improve the drainage, but very slightly.
And I think that's a moot point.
I'm minded to think of some of our own applications
we put in on garage sites owned by this council.
and quite often we go back and say it should be single -storey and I think that
may well be the way forward here. I still find it a large amount of development
for that width of site. I think that the amenity space I'm happy with it's some
people prefer a smaller garden but I think it's the width of that plot and
putting two houses on it adjacent to the existing masonettes I just think it is
too tight for this site is my current view but I'm happy to listen to other
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:08:02
people's views. Thank you. Any other councillors? Councillor Dadd. Thank you
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:08:07
Chairman I'm inclined to agree that it is still over development of the site I
I also think that the back garden is too small,
but because of the proximity of the adjacent houses,
we also have got fairly small gardens.
But I'm also concerned that it's in flood zone two,
and our drainage officer is reluctantly agreeing.
And to me, that seems as though it ought to be looked at
a bit closer and certainly people who live around there
know that it regularly floods and it's all very well
putting in conditions to say that that particular dwelling
must have, you know, floor levels, et cetera, et cetera.
And taking away some of the hard surface area
and make it permeable will help.
But I still think that we should be cautious about that.
But my main concern is the bulk of what is being proposed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:09:33
I would just like to thank members who did manage to attend the site visit. I should
have mentioned this earlier, sorry. Also to thank both the agent who allowed us access
and the neighbour who kindly let us all traipse through. I apologise for people who couldn't
make it on the day, but it was a very useful site visit to actually see what it's going
to look like so it was very useful. Other members, Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:10:00
Thank you chair. Just to start I think it's worth noting like it's really difficult for
us if we're reading stuff like reluctantly agreeing you know it's a black or white situation
it's either you agree or you don't agree to say you reluctantly agree it's you know leaves
leaves room for doubt and concern.
So I just sort of note that.
I might not make myself very popular here,
but I don't see as many of the issues
as some of my colleagues looking at the site
and particularly what Councillor Cohen was saying
about the design of the site.
It almost strikes me as that the masonettes that are there
are kind of the odd ones out at the moment
You've kind of got a horseshoe shape going around the clothes and then you've got those
two just in the middle, which I would argue are already disrupting the light and the views
of the properties directly in front of them, albeit there is a greater distance.
I think on balance when weighing up the removal of an asbestos ridden site, in terms of drainage
issue is obviously concrete, so that's only gonna hinder and impede drainage efficiency.
I think Councillor Williams said it, even a small amenity space will improve that situation.
I think obviously when looking at the application that was before us before, it was clearly
overbearing and too much development. I think obviously you've seen a reduction in the area
used and I think mindful of the policies that he's compliant with and the correct
glass will be used and the design be used so that people aren't you know
interfering with with other neighbouring privacy issues and light issues there
isn't anything I can really see that I think contradicts policy enough for us
to to refuse on this occasion so that's my position at the moment but obviously
I wasn't able to attend the site so I am listening and would be keen to hear from
others who attended the site to get a better opinion. Thank you. Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:12:19
Cllr Martin Morris - 1:12:24
Councillor Morris. Thank you, Jim. Yeah I did attend the site visit which I agree
was extremely useful and thank you for organising it. So the proposed houses are
going to be essentially an extension of the houses that are in Avondale Close.
there's already a short small number of houses there.
This new house will kind of extend it.
The most interesting part of the site visit
was looking at the impact on the houses in Avondale Drive
because those will be the ones that are most effective.
And I agree with the opinion that this development
is just too large for the site.
And I think it will have a huge impact
on the houses in Avondale Drive.
So that's one of my concerns.
The other concern is about flooding.
So we've seen pictures of flooding
and there's one of the gardens has at least 30
to 40 centimetres of water in it.
It's quite a significant amount of flooding.
I know the drainage team have asked
that planning conditions be opposed
should the application be approved.
I don't know, I defer to the planning officer,
But I mean, I think this is sort of, shouldn't we be applying these conditions before we
approve something?
I mean, this is obviously quite a significant, I mean, I know it's, I know what the flood
zone is, but it's quite clear from the pictures and the experience of residents that flooding
is quite significant there.
And can we apply conditions before anything happens?
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:13:57
Yes, sorry, just to come in then.
James Rogers - 1:14:18
These are pretty standard conditions.
So the unique thing about this site is it is within flood zone two, but it's still acceptable
to agree a principle of development in an area where there is a prevailing character
of development, subject to the findings of flood risk assessment and management and maintenance
plan, which is in condition 13.
So it's not a non -standard condition, but it is somewhat unique given that it is in
flood zone 2 but it's not an unheard of condition it's it can be done this way
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:15:03
thank you members any other comment Councillor Articani I share the same
Cllr Arash Ardakani - 1:15:07
view as councillor Cohen in terms of lots of light and overall over
development of the side I know they are quite well so I actually would not be
supporting the scheme as it is.
Thank you.
Yes.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:15:23
Thank you, Chair.
Regretfully, I couldn't make the site visit the other day,
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:15:29
I just, too many things in the day.
I can't help being a bit of an old fuddy -duddy
on these sort of schemes, and regretfully,
I also don't know the precise date
that the planning was set out and the estate was set out.
But I believe things were generally set out
the way they were for a reason.
And Avondale Close and the surrounding area,
it was well thought out.
And where the garages are, at that level,
they form a very effective barrier.
They break apart the houses.
And you can even see that with the school, with Whitebridge,
where the school itself is coming
close to residential boundaries.
It's not two levels.
It's a single level.
In my mind, the concept of a two -storey dwelling in that close proximity, it's just its enclosure,
it's closing in.
And the sensible thing to do in my mind, just going along with what Councillor Williamson
was saying, is that the established pattern there suggests what would be better and fit
onto that site is something single storey.
Quite how it orientates itself, I don't know.
That would need to be thought out and just worked out.
I can't see that two houses fit in that particular way.
It's going to have a terrible knock -on effect.
I'm going to sound like a right broken record with the previous schemes in the previous
committee.
And I'm very concerned about the knock -on effect it's going to have on neighbouring gardens.
Both the people in them being overlooked in their private immunity space, but equally
they're going to lose the concept of what they're in, which is an open space.
To be in an open garden and suddenly look up and have a two -storey gable end overlooking you is...
it's oppressive.
So I just hope that we can possibly take the opportunity to have a slight rethink on this one.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, there's no further comments members, I'll move this.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:17:34
Oh, sorry, Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:17:40
Just on the point, I think people are making a good point around the single storey.
My only concern would be, if a single storey building was to follow the orientation of
the garages, a single storey building is still going to have a roof on it.
The bungalow is still, it's not going to be flat roof like these garages.
So we're not going to be in a situation where you're going to build a habitable home that
people can still have the same view.
So if that was spread the lengthways across,
you'd potentially be blocked,
having more of an impact across,
you know, one, two, three, four, five, six houses,
as opposed to something taller but side on.
Just seems to me that I appreciate that the two
that are looking directly at it are having a bigger impact
looking at the side on of a two -storey building.
But if you were looking on a single storey,
and obviously a pitched roof on it all the way along,
you'd be having a negative effect on four or five houses.
I think we have to be careful that we're not now verging
onto discussing a potential potential.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:18:42
We are at the end of the day looking at what is in front
of us and it's what is in front of us.
It's not really up to us to decide on an alternative.
Sorry, Angie, thank you.
Yeah, sorry.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'd just like to come back on that.
Yee Cheung - 1:18:56
Yeah, we're going to the single storey dwelling
that you're envisaging on this site. The prevailing pattern of development around
the site are predominantly two storeys in height and this if you reduce the
height of this dwelling these dwellings surely will be out of keeping the
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:19:21
character of the area. Yes Councillor Coughlin. Thank you again chair. I'm just going to just say that
of course that is you know it's laid out as a housing estate I think to say that
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:19:26
suddenly we're proposing something that's out of odds it's just straying into very
very very flimsy ground I think I mean there's all sorts of silly things you
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:19:46
can say I just think that's the odd way an odd way to approach it. Okay all right
members I am going to move this to a vote we have a recommendation to grant
Planning Commission. All those in favour of granting please show. All those
against.
Eight Chair. Thank you so Planning Commission has not been granted. As that
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:20:15
application hasn't been granted we're now looking for a proposal, can't just
leave it as not granted. We now need to look if anyone's prepared to give put
forward a proposal for refusal with some sound planning conditions for the
refusal. If I can just try and summarise the main concerns it seems that it's a
harm to neighbours due to the excessive bulk and massing. We've mentioned shoe
We have also mentioned the proximity to other homes impacting on the light, especially the
two -storey element of the current application is of concern when it is replacing some very
low -level garaging.
Are there any...
Councillor Dadd, I saw the hand.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:21:09
I think actually it is virtually the same as refusal reason number one from
last time which is the proposed development is not considered to be in
context within which it will sit and represents a form of overdevelopment of
the site. The proposed development due to its height, scale,
bulk, depth and mass and positioning when compared to the character and urban grain
of the area would result in a dominant, incongruous and cramped form of development. The proposal
would therefore cause detrimental harm to the character and appearance of the site,
the street scene and the surrounding area, contrary to policy DM9 of the adopted plan
and NPPF, et cetera. So that I've taken a little bit out of what was from last time,
but I think that is what the committee was saying.
Yeah, no, I would take, I was trying to bring in,
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:22:04
yeah, but Councillor Williamson.
Yeah, I totally agree with that,
but I would take out context
Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:22:10
because everything around it is two -storey.
Yes.
Some of it three at the back
when they've got their roof extensions,
but I'd take out context.
Yes.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:22:25
Okay, Councillor Dadd, back to you.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:22:29
Can we also put in something about the concerns about flooding as well?
Can I just cheque the planning office as to how we stand about the comment on flooding?
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:22:44
James Rogers - 1:22:49
with? So it is in flood zone two and there is a general presumption against development
within flood zone two. In this case we had comments from our land ranges team that it
could be dealt with by condition but if members feel that flood zone two would be enough to
warrant refusal because technically it is increasing risk of adding people or what's
known as vulnerable development into that flood zone, despite the fact it's surrounded
by other developments.
So if you feel that that should be a reason for refusal, it could be added.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:23:30
Can I ask, would it be relevant to link it to climate change, in view of climate change
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:23:32
and the increased amount of heavy downpours,
or is that not relevant in planning terms?
I personally wouldn't go there.
I would keep it simple,
Yee Cheung - 1:23:45
James Rogers - 1:23:46
because we're here on this table,
we're not flood risk experts,
but what we are is well versed in policy compliance,
and you could argue that it's contrary
to the flood risk policy that I just mentioned.
Okay.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:24:04
Okay. Right. Okay. So have I got a proposal? A proposer. Well, a proposer and with a proposal.
I'm talking about a proposal, a potential proposal to refuse. Right. So we've got a
Everyone's happy with those reasons.
We've got a seconder for that proposal.
Councillor Amos, thank you.
Members, all those in favour of refusing planning permission
on those grounds, please show.
Oh, sorry.
I thought you were, sorry.
Nine, Chair.
Eight, Chair, sorry, eight.
And against.
And abstentions.
One, Chair.
Okay, planning permission is refused.
Members, we will move swiftly on to item 9.

9 EPF/0323/25 - The Lodge, Goldings Hill, Loughton, IG10 2RY

Cllr Sue Jones - 1:25:32
In fact, I won't move swiftly on, I'm just going to wait two minutes for the Council
chamber to empty, the gallery to empty.
Okay, members, moving on to item 9. This is EPF0325 stroke 25, the Lodge Goldings Hill
Loughton. And James is going to be presenting this item. Thank you.
James Rogers - 1:26:12
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone. So yes, this item is the lodge in Goldings
Hill. So the proposal tonight is to extend an existing dwelling with a single store extension
and to erect two new dwellings on land adjacent to it. Officers are recommending that plan
of permission is granted, subject to conditions and a legal agreement. So starting with the
It's on a very prominent corner, so this is the existing dwelling here.
It's on the corner of Goldings Hill and Goldings Road, clearly visible from public viewpoints.
The existing building is a locally listed building and is therefore what's known as
a non -designated heritage asset.
Looking at the images here, they just capture the prominence of this building.
It's an attractive late 19th century building.
On the right hand side on this view here, you can just see the extended view further
down Golding's Road, which does show something of a varied street scene, despite the prominence
of the main building.
So turning to the proposal, firstly it's to erect a flat roof single storey extension
to the main house which would measure eight metres by three metres and would in actual
fact be permitted development.
But the more substantive part of the proposal was to erect two new dwellings which would
front onto Golding's Road in the existing rear garden.
Now the two dwellings would leave a smaller
but usable garden area for the existing house,
which is here, as well as the parking area,
whilst providing adequate green space for themselves.
This is a similar situation for comparable gardens
in the street, in the prevailing area as well.
Each dwelling would have two car parking spaces and would leave at least two for the main house as well.
Now there's a gap of approximately 11 metres to the rear elevation of Oak Tree Cottage,
which backs onto the site and is located on higher ground than the application site.
So, we say that the proposed development would not cause harm to the prevailing character
or appearance of the locally listed building.
As I say, the side extension could be constructed under permitted development in any event.
Yeah, so, but the erection of two dwellings on land adjacent, it's reflective of its
surroundings, its garden sizes are similar to what is in the location.
It's good use of urban land, we say, and in an area where we do need to maximise housing
potential.
In summary, we say that there isn't harm caused to the non -designated heritage asset, and
provision of the two dwellings wouldn't cause significant harm to neighbouring properties.
So, therefore, we say that planned emissions should be granted subject to the conditions
and a legal agreement to secure financial contributions to protect the Ebb and Forest
SAC. Thank you. Thank you. We have three speakers on this item. The first speaker is Anton French,
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:30:03
an objector. Good evening. Good evening. I'm speaking as an objector on behalf of a number
of neighbours who are objecting to this plan
Public Speaker - 1:30:10
and have grave concerns for the planning application
of the lodge Goldings Hill.
The proposal will have a detrimental impact
on a number of properties in Goldings Road.
For example, number 87, which has side windows,
will be extremely close to plot one
and will obviously greatly affect their life.
It's not being made clear on the plans
that immediately opposite the site
are 1960 built masonettes that were purposely built
across the road from the lodge with their kitchens in front,
giving them a peaceful and open outlook.
92 and 94 currently have an open view,
but are much lower than the land opposite,
where two tall houses will cause loss of light
in their kitchens and bedrooms.
Number 96 is also directly opposite and is very low down,
and all they'll see is driveways, cars and a brick wall.
The proposed driveways are designed,
one car in front of the other,
will not work if new owners and visitors
park on the very narrow road.
Fire engines and or ambulances
will never manage to get down there.
Golding's Road can be very dangerous.
There have been accidents on a blind bend
when turning into it from Golding's Hill.
Reversing into the new properties,
These drives will also be hazardous.
The junctions at Lower Road and Furrs Drive also cause mayhem at times.
We live in Oak Tree Cottage, a bungalow fronting Golding's Hill, next to and behind the site.
Our bungalow has previously been affected by other surrounding properties having large
extensions.
If this application goes through with the closeness of the new properties, we'd feel
privacy and ambience.
Plot one, whose bedroom window would look straight down our
garden and block our view.
We currently look out on trees, shrubs, grass and flowers,
whereas if permission is given, we'd look out on bricks and
mortar, losing our peacefulness and light.
We feel the houses with patios and short back gardens will be
too close, both overbearing and noisy.
My wife is wheelchair -bound and our guardian to us is a peaceful haven.
We are also very concerned about our bungalow footings and our oak and pine trees.
The oak is 250 years old.
We're concerned about its roots, its protection order.
They will be severely affected by these plans.
Concern of losing a heritage site is most unsettling.
It will be cluttered, dwarfed and lost, losing its ambience and its grandeur of the proud
gatehouse of Golding's Manor.
There's also concern that the lodge is on the edge of a conservation area being so near
to the forest.
In summary, I think the proposal of two four bedroom houses on this site is possibly ridiculous.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:33:19
Thank you. Our second speaker is Councillor John Wiley from Loutentown Council.
Public Speaker - 1:33:27
Thank you Chair, good evening. As you said, and as a few of my points have
already been picked up on but I will reiterate a few. We're here to oppose on
behalf of Loutentown Council's Planning Committee. We know that the lodge is a
prominent position, so just taking the lodge regardless of permitted
development, any addition to that building should be considered in terms
of a heritage. Sticking a box on the side of it we feel is a completely
unacceptable design and would be contrary to DM 9 regardless of the
by allowing that. So we feel the lodge should be left alone or a much more
heritage type design put forward and with it if you are going to have a
boundary keep it away you know have more of a boundary because at the moment
that extension goes very close to the boundary. Which adds to with the new
development, a terracing effect along that road.
So the two further dwellings we, again,
regard as a serious overdevelopment of the site.
With a negative impact, again, we
believe, contrary to policy DM9, two large four bedroom family
homes with small gardens is a serious overdevelopment.
And with the hill, it's overlooking,
and the impact on the neighbours is contrary to their
and will affect their amenity, both in outlook and generally
privacy.
The design should be more complementary
to the existing building.
We don't feel the design is very good at all.
We would much rather see maybe a single property
on that remaining land, keeping it away from the lodge,
rather than the terracing effect.
There's been touching on urbanisation.
I think all the people that are resident around there
don't feel they're living in an urban area there.
It's close to the forest, and they regard it by allowing this,
this would be causing urbanisation.
So again, it should be refused purely on that basis.
We feel that in trying to push this through,
there's been 27 conditions put forward,
which seem to be leaving the design open to development further down the line.
I actually regard this as a procedural impropriety.
It should be refused and the design should be looked at again and put back in
so there is no doubt as to what the design is.
Thank you very much indeed.
Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:36:58
I was just going to say that with the conditions, if they're in, we want all the conditions.
Thank you. Our third speaker is Mr Martin Patchey. Good evening.
Public Speaker - 1:37:10
Yeah, thank you. Our architectural practise has been preparing carefully sensitive designs in the
Eppen Forest area for the past 40 years. This proposal is for two modest dwellings and a
single -storey extension to the existing house and these have been designed sensibly with good
spatial gaps between them. The adjoining site also has a veteran oak tree and our
arbour culturalist has confirmed that the proposals are outside the 19 metre root
protection area so the oak tree will be preserved. Whilst there have been some
objections for neighbours the two houses meet the council's floor space standards
and the garden spaces are very similar to those 83 or 87 Golding's Road and are
therefore in keeping with the general built -up part of Loughton. Although
neighbours have commented on highway issues and parking, this currently meets
the parking standards of two car parking spaces per dwelling. Neighbours have also
referred to the loss of view and outlook and whilst we respect that, the loss of a
view is not a planning matter. Overlooking was mentioned but this has
been dealt with by the Planning Officer and is no worse than what currently
exists from other neighbouring properties. The opposite report confirms that the
proposed new houses are well -designed houses and take reference to the
surrounding pattern of development and lead to no issues of serious concern. It
therefore satisfies the main planning issues. However the principle of
concern does appear to be the effect on the non -designated heritage asset. The
particularly the two most important aspects which front onto Goldings Hill and Goldings Road.
These are retained unchanged apart from a modest single -storey rear extension which could be built under permitted development.
We also have retained a nine metre, which is 30 feet, gap between the lodge and the new houses to retain its detached setting.
If this is approved this evening, planning officers will be able to remove any
permitted development rights from the new houses and the lodge in the future and
this will prevent future development of it preserving the hedge at the lodge as
approved. The setting, our heritage consultant demonstrated that the large
suburban garden to the lodge was added in the 1960s and is entirely arbitrary
in nature and there is no historical context insofar as the history or setting of the lodge
is concerned. Historic maps show its original curtilage was much more tightly drawn around it
mirroring what we are now proposing. It's important to note this is not a listed building
but that it is locally listed and it is important and and the important elevations to Goldings Hill
and Gullings Road are not affected and also that we are retaining the important
hedge along this corner and even adding to it. It also conforms with council
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:40:26
policies. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Right this is in, or
Councillor Whiskin is in your ward, would you like to say anything? Thank you
I think the residents of Loughton believe that the lodge is a significant characterful building in its setting.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:40:44
And I think that's the pertinent point.
The land which is proposed to be built on is part of the setting.
Irrelevant of the old history, that's what we look at today.
And that is part of the character of that area of Loughton.
And we should be preserving the character for buildings.
We've seen enough buildings demolished, and we're saying this is being demolished,
but character is important to towns and we should respect that character.
I also feel from the street view scene, the two new buildings will vastly loom over the
lodge and will diminish its respectful setting, and I think it constitutes overdevelopment.
I would like to say to the committee members who are not residents in
Loughton that perhaps they'd put it in context with characterful buildings in
their towns. Would they like to see development and garden grabbing in
significantly regarded properties in those areas? So I think that's something
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:42:00
we should consider. Thank you. Thank you. Members we have a recommendation to grant
with conditions. Any comments, questions? Councillor Dadd and then Councillor
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:42:12
Williamson. Thank you Chairman. I'm sorry I'm going to read something from this
in just a minute. I've got several concerns and I do respect that it is
very landmark area in Loughton and because it's only locally listed it
doesn't have the same protection and settings are very difficult even with
listed buildings. My two main concerns however are one of them is that the
addition seems to go above the detail of that nice building.
So presumably because of the slope of the ground, it has to be higher to get the ceiling height,
but that is going to actually change the look of that building.
And that I personally don't think is in keeping with it.
and I think that is contrary to the heritage aspect.
I'm sure that the architects have looked at other ways
of doing it, but to me,
that doesn't sit nicely on the building.
The other big issue I have is the protected oak tree,
which is 150 years old,
and Loughton Tree Strategy also comments about it,
And I spoke to Tricia Moxie, who did the research for the Loughton Tree Strategy,
which is the Loughton residents involved in, and the town council and EFDC.
And apparently oak trees are having trouble with certain, if certain pathogens get into
their root system, they can actually be diseased.
Now, she's sent me a little note here about this particular tree.
And so it's now hemmed in by buildings and hard standing,
which will be impacted on the available ground space for its roots
and supporting fungi, mycelium, which typically extends to about 50 metres
beyond the edge of the canopy.
Although this tree is growing, its environment is not ideal.
Any reduction in its root protection zone will result in the possibility
of root damage, rendering it susceptible to attack by harmful fungi. Recently published
research recorded that diseased or previously damaged trees are also more likely to suffer
with wind throw during windy weather. Now why I raise that is because more partners
who did the tree protection plan actually show, and I don't know whether you can have
it on the screen or not, it's the revised one,
which I took off the website, I have been to the site,
shows that that particular tree, the root protection zone,
goes over part of the existing house
and where the proposed extension is,
but also covers most of the garden of plot two
and the corner of plot two house.
Now, this is a problem if you drill down and they're suggesting that you could do piles
to see whether the roots are there.
But if you damage the roots, you're getting the pathogens in which will disease the tree.
It's already been cut back severely and it is quite an old tree.
And I think it's a protected tree.
It's an oak tree.
To me, that's...
Those two... I personally don't have any problems
with the design of the houses and the fact they've got enough parking,
but to me, plot two shouldn't be there because of the route protection,
and also I don't think that there should be a rear extension
covering the area where the route protection area is.
it should have to be much smaller, but also avoiding the detailing above the brickwork
the first floor. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just get the officers to comment on the
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:46:36
just confirm about the route protection zone for us? Because no it's okay. Let's go through the
James Rogers - 1:46:44
office. So we say that the route protection area is sufficient and the conditions that underpin it
are going to be effective.
So we've got protective conditions
regarding not storing building materials within those areas.
But let's face it, this is a protected tree.
And without these conditions, it wouldn't
be acceptable to grant planning permission.
but we say that these conditions will be effective.
And because this is a technical point and we're, you know,
at the front desk, we're not tree experts.
We believe that the evidence shows that this would be
effective when secured through condition.
You may.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:47:37
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:47:38
I note that you haven't had EFDC tree people comment on this.
Is there any comment from the?
James Rogers - 1:47:46
Yeah, I mean, that might be true, I don't know.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:47:52
Okay, Councillor Williamson, I think you indicated.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:47:56
I think the tree is an important part of this.
We have got conditions.
Hines, Captain hindsight's amazing, isn't it?
If something did happen to this tree,
but we have conditions to deal with it, I believe.
My only concern on this is the single storey extension to the lodge.
I think it's totally out of keeping.
I understand it can be done under permitted development.
We're talking about the setting of the lodge.
I think we lose that setting as soon as we put that side extension on.
but the horse, if this was the lodge
to a much larger house years ago,
that horse has definitely bolted.
I can see no reason under policy on the two houses,
but I do not like the single store extension,
but not liking is not a planning reason.
No, and indeed I'm led to believe
that actually the single storey extension element
could be done under permitted development rights anyway.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:49:08
So okay, Councillor Coughlin.
Thank you, Chair.
I feel I ought to say, preface this, why is it always me?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:49:14
I'm dressed like this tonight
purely because I couldn't get home in time
to then get back here
because there was a quite substantial car accident
on the corner of the road.
So I already looked at this thinking,
I don't understand the Essex County Council position.
I am now gonna extend that to say,
I think it's poppycock that they've not commented on this.
Effectively, the road there is almost a single carriage road
because there are cars parked on the carriageway.
Granted, there are double yellow lines where the lodge is,
but then on the other side of the road,
there are ordinarily cars parked.
So how on earth is someone gonna reverse
off the driveway of plot two onto the main carriageway, which is a single carriage, effectively
cars coming both ways, in the dark.
I think it's just ridiculous to say that it's not going to be dangerous in some way, shape
or form.
There's obviously going to have to be a section 278 that comes in somewhere to drop the curb
that entire length, which then also brings into account the telephone pole.
And, you know, the point we're talking about, the extension can be done to the large animal
development, well, so be it.
Let it be.
This is just, you know, stealth development.
I think this is more shock and awe developments on this one.
I think it could be approached in a different way.
It's just too much, and I think it just needs a rethink just before we grant something that,
as I say, just in my mind, is categorically unsafe.
I'd like to have an opinion from Essex County Council.
I know they can change their opinion if they want to.
I just don't know if this has been properly put to them.
And just the final point is there is a standing objection
from the Conservation Officer,
which I don't believe has been answered.
So we've got no answer from the Tree Officer,
and we seem to be running roughshod
over the Conservation Officer.
So what are we doing here?
This is important, but we all go past it
three, four times a day,
and we're trying to pole -axe the setting of it just purely because it might
possibly be able to have something done to it under for misdevelopment. We just
need to step back and just have a think just what we're doing. That's enough for me I think.
Cllr Clive Amos - 1:51:44
Thank you. Councillor Amos. Thank you Madam Chairman. One of my problems with this is
that we seem to have two things bundled together. We have the extension of the
I would like to have seen them as two separate applications, not one.
When it comes to the design of the houses, I don't think that's a problem, certainly
in my view, regarding the street scene.
They seem to be okay.
I am concerned about what Councillor Coughlin has said and the reports that I've read regarding
the dangerous situation on that road space there.
and I would be reluctant, even though I say I don't have a problem with the design of the houses,
but I would be reluctant to approve something that increase the dangers to traffic on that particular area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Matthews.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:52:39
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:52:41
Just on the tree issue, can the officer just tell me,
So are we, has the analysis of the impact just been done
by a third party and you've assessed that
and come up with the conditions?
So why would we not have used our own team
to come to that conclusion?
Just on that, my full process at the moment
is a sort of potential to defer this
until we've actually got our own officer's opinion
on this matter, but if you could give me some reason why that wouldn't be suitable.
So simply said, I think it's a matter of resources when it comes to the tree team.
James Rogers - 1:53:26
That's the sad truth of it.
But let's face it, this is a protected tree, legally protected tree.
Any willful damage to it, anything that would cause its loss would be a criminal offence
and it's protected in that sense.
The objective evidence that's been submitted has been looked
at and the conditions that have been proposed by us, we say,
would ensure its protection.
So, again, we would reiterate that it would ensure that it
won't be lost.
Yes.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:54:06
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:54:07
I thank the officer for that and I'm drawn to think about what the officer said earlier
that obviously the guys on the front desk this evening, which we'll just add I massively
appreciate being here because it makes the presentation far easier for us to understand,
but by their own admission aren't tree experts, are policy experts.
The difficulty when we're dealing with such an important asset, such as a protected tree,
is yes, there can be criminal charges, there can be all sorts of ramifications, but once
it's dead, it's dead.
It doesn't bring back something of...
I would argue, as someone who's my whole life lived in this area, driven up and down there,
I'd argue the tree is as prominent as the house.
You know, it reminds me of the case we had
with the tree at the top of Epping.
And as Councillor Whitson said,
consider an area of your own.
And I thought actually, you know,
that was one that we fought very hard
because of the tree itself.
I think we're in similar territory here.
And although resources are obviously an issue,
I'd rather look to defer this
to allow enough time so that we've got sufficient resources in place to be able to have our
own tree officer's opinion on this, the tree experts to then tie up with the policy experts
and really have a clear view on this.
As comforting as it may be for some people to see that there'd be criminal offences taken,
we're still potentially risking the tree not being there and that's my bigger concern.
And I think in terms of the scheme itself,
I'd agree with other members.
I think it would have been better to see them separately,
but the side extension could be done
under permitted development.
As Councillor Williams says, I don't like it.
That's not policy, obviously.
The other two houses,
I don't particularly think they're a benefit in the area,
but they're policy compliant.
So again, difficult to kind of have a negative opinion
or an objectively negative opinion on that,
but my issue firmly sticks with the tree.
So I don't know if other members would agree with me,
but my proposal would be to defer it
until we've got our own officers review on it.
Thank you.
Do you want to put that, you just said your proposal is,
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:56:35
do you want to put that as a proposal?
Oh, sorry, Councillor Williamson first.
I'm happy to second that.
Oh, brilliant.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:56:42
Okay, so members, we have actually got a proposal
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:56:47
to defer this item to allow our own tree officers to make further investigations
and report back to committee. That's proposed by Councillor Matthews and
seconded by Councillor Williamson. Sorry I've just got there. Chair I was just going to make a
suggestion just on the basis of a deferral. Can I suggest that it
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:57:09
might be deferred back to this committee so it comes back to the same team that's
discussed it rather than it being deferred and ending up with committee A that look at
it and just think, what's this? So there's some degree of continuity.
We haven't had that before. We haven't had that, yes.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:57:30
We've had a deferral before and it just was deferred and it came back to a completely
different committee. I think it would make sense for it to come
back to the same committee unless we don't know the real reason that it can't but that
does seem to make sense to me that it comes back to the same committee. So within that
we will ask for it to come back to this committee so we don't have to be going over previous
discussions. All those in favour of deferment, would you please show?
Nine in favour.
I think that's unanimous.
This item will be deferred for further investigation by our own tree officers.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:58:12
Members, we are moving to our final application of tonight.

10 EPF/1666/25 - 89 Queens Road, Loughton, IG10 1RR

This is EPF 166625, 89 Queens Road, Loughton.
We have a recommendation to approve with conditions.
Again, this was part of a site visit that was held on Monday afternoon and again a very
useful site visit. I'd like to thank both the applicant and the neighbour who actually
allowed us to walk all the way through their homes and see this site. Seeing it both from
the applicant's site and the neighbour's was extremely useful, so thank you for that.
Right, I'm going to hand straight over to Suki who is on Teams. Hi, thank you Suki.
Thank you Chairman, good evening Members. Can I just ask do you all hear me? Can you all hear me sorry?
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:59:17
Yes I think we can. Thank you. My apologies, may I draw Members' attention to page 66 of the agenda.
The final section of Loughton Town Council's comments were omitted. I will therefore read out the missing remarks.
Members of Loughton Town Council consider a two floor property of an improved design
having regard to improved biodiversity would be more acceptable than this three floor proposal.
Members also supported the local planning authorities refusal reason regarding lack
against the adverse impact of the EPSAC resulting from this proposal.
This application relates to, sorry I just get my pointer,
to land at 89 Queens Road.
It seeks permission for the demolition of the two -storey side extension and construction
of a new dwelling.
The application is before members as it's received an objection from the town council
who has registered to speak.
The application property is located on the eastern side of Queen's Road.
It's outside of Greenbelt and has no heritage designation.
The application property is indicated on this slide by the red arrow.
You can see on the left is the property number 85 which has its own single -storey rear extension
and rear door mark.
The top row of this slide shows the existing property photos of the site.
The central photo is of the side extension,
which is proposed to be demolished.
The bottom left of this slide is of the passageway
between 85 and 89, Queens Road.
And the bottom right is taken from the neighbouring
properties rear garden, looking at the application site.
The larger plans on the left show the proposed front
and rear elevations.
On the right, the smaller plan showed
the existing front and rear elevations.
Materials include red brick and white window walls,
clay roof tiles and white painted timber windows.
This slide shows the existing and proposed sections
of the proposal.
The ridge height of the gable roof
will be 2 .4 metres below the ridge of the existing house.
This slide shows the existing and proposed
lower ground floor plan.
The garage and out building will be replaced
by a bedroom, kitchen and diner.
The extension will extend the existing side extension
by 8 .9 metres to the rear.
This slide shows the existing and proposed upper ground floor plans.
The depth of the side projection will be increased by four metres compared to the existing situation.
The study will be replaced by a study circulation space and living room.
This slide shows the existing flat roof area and the new proposed first floor plan.
The first floor contains two bedrooms and a bathroom.
The post first floor has a depth of eight metres.
This floor will be stepped in by 1 .25 metres
from the rear elevation of the upper ground floor.
This slide shows the proposed street scene
where a gap of 96 centimetres will be retained at upper ground floor level and above.
You can see the red dashed line which indicates the level of the roof of the existing side
extension.
Most of the additional height will be contained within the gable roof which slopes away as
as it rises.
The resulting impact is not considered
to be overbearing on 85 Prince Road.
This slide illustrates the proposed site plan
with a new garden of approximately 95 square metres.
While concerns raised by the Aquarium 85
regarding potential loss of privacy are acknowledged,
It's noted that no windows are proposed
on the side elevation based on this property.
In addition, all windows affected by the proposal
are either secondary or certain non -habitable spaces
as such refusal on the basis of overlooking
or loss of privacy could not be justified.
One on street parking spaces proposed per dwelling cycle
and refuge storage would be located
to the front of the property.
The site falls within the bright light blue area of Essex Parking Standards category,
indicating it's in a high connectivity area.
Consequently, the development is required to provide one parking space per unit along
with an additional 0 .25 unallocated parking space per unit.
The site also benefits from its proximity to Churchill which has a good bus service.
The Victorian property at 81 Queen's Road has a width of 6 .04 metres compared with the
5 .5 metres width of the proposal.
However, it should be noted that 71 Queen's Road, which is this traditional property here,
measures 5 .5 metres wide and the terraced houses at 73 to 75A
Queen's Road are 4 .5 metres wide. Overall the proposal is considered
acceptable in principle and the design accords with national and local planning
standards. It would not give rise to unacceptable environmental or amenity
impact approval is therefore recommended thank you chairman thank you our first
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:06:17
speaker on this item is an objector and Stewart Ratan good evening good evening
madam chairman members of committee good evening my name is Stewart Ratan the
Public Speaker - 2:06:28
owner of 85 Queens Road which is a neighbouring house I'm speaking the
objection to application EPF slash 1 triple 6 slash 25 at 89 Queens Road. You are being
asked to approve what is in reality a very similar scheme to that previously
refused. The key harms remain and the officers report undermines them. First on
character. This part of Queens Road is defined by large houses on generous
plots with clear gaps and long rear gardens. The existing side extension at 89
extends as a modest addition. The proposal creates a full three -storey
dwelling extremely narrow on a visibly shorter and tighter plot. The gap of
about one metres the boundary wall does not create spaciousness. It simply
emphasises that this is a skinny standalone house squeezed between 89 and
85. National policy requires development to be visually attractive, sympathetic to
local character and to add to the overall quality of the area. Local plan
policy DM9 requires high quality contest -led design. A tall narrow gabled house crammed
onto this plot is contrived and out of keeping. The previous design reason for refusal has
in my opinion not been overcome. Second on residential movies in my house,
the dew dwelling places a substantial flank wall very close to the boundary running alongside
our garden. This will be overbearing, enclosing and oppressive. Due to daylight and outlook
from the kitchen and the decking and upper garden area, which is the most well used part
of our garden.
The proposal also introduces upper floor windows looking across our garden and onto the decking
area and upper garden area.
The simple reality is that people will be able to look down from an elevated level onto
what is a well used private space.
There is a clear loss of privacy conflicts with the MPPF requirements to secure high
standard of amenity as well as with policy DM9. In summary the scheme remains cramped and out of
character and it would cause serious harm to our living. The previous refu - reasons for refusal have
not been resolved. I therefore invite members to reject the officer's recommendation and refuse
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:08:43
planning permission. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you and we have a speaker from the
Public Speaker - 2:08:47
I'm here to represent Latin Town Council's Planning Committee who objected to this application.
We noted that it was an improved resubmission, however we still feel that it has failed to
address the previous objections that we raised and were supported by the previous refusal.
So in effect a lot of our previous objections still stand.
The committee feel that the proposal is detrimental or does have a detrimental effect on the street
scene and not in accordance with policy DM9.
It's creating a loss of symmetry.
It's squeezed in.
It was a result in a limited amenity space for the resident of the new dwelling.
It also creates, as already stated, we believe a negative impact on the downhill neighbourhood,
number 85, and their amenity.
There is going to be increased overlooking from the new property into their back garden,
which again has been mentioned, because they are uphill and they've got increased rear
window heights.
So we would be minded to ask if it is approved for a condition
for some screening or obscure glazing or something to be
introduced to those rear windows.
It's going to create a negative impact on the biodiversity of
the nearby forest, as it is very close.
And you've got reduced gardens between two.
And there is no proposal as far as we can see for biodiversity
net gain, which should be as a part of a new development.
So I think that's a lot of the other points I've had
are already covered.
But so we support the refusal and like to see an additional
condition on top of the other conditions regarding the overlooking.
Okay, thank you very much indeed. Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:11:07
And our final speaker on this item. And the final speaker is the agent Dominic Lamb.
Good evening. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, councillors.
Public Speaker - 2:11:23
My name is Dominic Lamb and I am the architect and agent representing the client for this
application to construct a single self -built dwelling in the place of existing two -storey
site extension. This application will allow the owners of 89 Queens Road to create a self -contained
dwelling next door to their property where their elder parents can move to for support
as they get older. This application has been carefully considered to ensure that the impact
of neighbouring properties and the surrounding area is kept to a minimum and this has been
developed in communication with your planning officers via positive pre -app service which
allowed us to address, respond to and find solutions to the previous reasons given for
refusal of a similar application in October 2024.
As a result, we have a high quality proposal that is described in the officer's report
that satisfies all relevant policy and guidance and has been recommended for approval by your
officers.
To pick it up on some of the points made against the application, I would stress that each
of these points have been addressed in full in your committee report to the satisfaction
of the officers.
But to summarise, this is viewed as an infill development within the street scene located
between number 89 and number 85 Queens Road.
There is no number 87, which suggests that a dwelling was proposed to occupy this site
in the future.
The design of the building reflects strong architectural characteristics present on adjacent
buildings and along the road, which as demonstrated does not have a clear architectural rhythm
with many different styles built over many decades. The proposal has been
carefully considered and redesigned to address the previous reasons for refusal.
The existing separating distances with number 85 have been maintained at 96 centimetres. The height
of the building has been reduced, the hierarchy of the window arrangements has been addressed
and the detail adjoining the host building of number 89 has been improved.
The proposal does not impinge on 85's right of light given there are no windows proposed in the
affected are either secondary or non -habitable and the degree of
overlooking into the gardens would be minimal and largely comparable to the
existing views experienced from the rear of number 89 and number 83. The height of
the building follows the stepping of the buildings down Queens Road with a
proposed height approximately midway between those of numbers 85 and 89 with
the building appearing as a two and a half storey house from the front like
number 85 does and achieving appropriate scale form and appearance in keeping
with the local character. The application will also include an EFSAC and infrastructure
enhancement contribution agreed via a section 106. The proposal is fully compliant and there
is a clear recommendation for approval by all your officers following a collaborative
design approach with the council. Councillors, thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:14:06
Thank you. Right, before we have a discussion, Councillor Wiskin, this is also in your ward,
would you like to comment? Thank you, Chairman. I took the time out to go on the site visit
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 2:14:19
and on the face of it the proposal looks okay. However, when you go on site, what's quite
The wall, the flank wall of the new building,
which I think is probably an improvement on the garages,
which are currently there and the existing setup,
but they are just too overbearing in my view
on that neighbour.
The officer drew comparison on the widths of the properties
and showed a picture of a house,
which is I think it's three or four doors down,
which was trying to demonstrate the width of the building
The proposed building was in line with what is currently there.
What was omitted was that there's actually a little garage,
which is another further six foot on the right of that building.
So that is rather deceptive in terms of a comparison.
All the points which the other objectors have made, I would also support.
It is also turning what is a detached house into a semi -detached house, two semi -detached houses with some clever separation gap which is a solid structure, which is interesting.
but I think the it is over development what has been suggested by the town
council is a smaller and lower building I think would be less unacceptable but I
would have urged the committee to reject this one thank you
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:16:07
Cllr Clive Amos - 2:16:12
members open up for discussion Councillor Amos thank you madam chairman I have to
say looking at the drawings and looking at number 89, if anything was incompatible with
the street scene, that certainly was. And I cannot see how this particular design would
be any more incompatible than 89 already is. I am also puzzled, and I hear this many times
here, that people complain that the neighbours could look over their gardens. Well, surely
Any two -storey building you can look over gardens. Certainly I can look over people's gardens people can look over mine and
This is not a flippant point and certainly not intended to be facetious
But what is it going on in the gardens that people want to hide the neighbours from it seems just a normal thing that?
people
Occupy their gardens usually for recreation sometimes for vegetable growing. I
us here many times but I've never yet been able to understand what the concern is. Thank
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:17:21
you. Thank you. Any other members? Councillor
Dadd. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I went on the site
Cllr Mary Dadd - 2:17:26
visit which is very interesting and personally I think that the way they changed it is very
good and I can't personally see that it's out of keeping.
When we went and saw it from the neighbouring garden that was also very interesting but
I can't see that it's going to be any worse than what is there at the moment and from
a neighbour's point of view I mean they've got something very close to the boundary anyway
and my recollection is that there aren't going to be any windows on that flank wall.
My one concern, which I did raise but has been answered by the case officer, was there
was only one car parking space, so there was actually room for two, and there could possibly
be room for two on the remaining number 89. But quite rightly she's shown that it's in
the blue section which is high sustainability or high connectivity and
I can't see any reasons planning reasons to refuse this thank you thank you any
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:18:45
other comments in that case members will take this to a vote all those members in
favour of granting planning permission please show
All those against? Two, Chairman. And that means no abstentions so planning
permission is granted.

11 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Cllr Sue Jones - 2:19:12
Members we then turn to item 11. Any other business? No other business, Chairman.
Thank you.
And in that case, I will be closing the meeting at,
make it 9 .23.
Thank you very much indeed, councillors.
Cllr Clive Amos
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Clive Amos
Amanda Apcar
Principal Planning Solicitor
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Amanda Apcar
Cllr Arash Ardakani
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Arash Ardakani
Yee Cheung
Senior Planning Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Yee Cheung
Cllr Barbara Cohen
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Barbara Cohen
Cllr Mary Dadd
District councillor for Ongar ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Mary Dadd
Sukhi Dhadwar
Principal Planning Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Sukhi Dhadwar
Cllr Sue Jones
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Will Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Tim Matthews
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Tim Matthews
Vivienne Messenger
Democratic Services Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Vivienne Messenger
Cllr Martin Morris
District councillor for Waltham Abbey North ward
Labour Party
View profile Cllr Martin Morris
James Rogers
Team Manager - Applications an Appeals
Epping Forest District Council
View profile James Rogers
Serena Shani
Democratic Services Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Serena Shani
Cllr Jon Whitehouse
District councillor for Epping East ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Cllr Ken Williamson
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Graham Wiskin
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Graham Wiskin