Planning Committee B - Wednesday 21 January 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee B
Wednesday, 21st January 2026 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

1 WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION

Share this agenda point

Cllr Sue Jones

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

Share this agenda point

Advice to Public and Speakers at Council Planning Committees (Sept 2024) FINAL

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Share this agenda point

Serena Shani
Cllr Sue Jones
Serena Shani
Cllr Sue Jones

4 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Share this agenda point

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Share this agenda point

Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Holly Whitbread
Cllr Sue Jones

6 MINUTES

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 19/11/2025 Planning Committee B

7 EPF/2176/24 - 16 and 18 Castle Street, Ongar, CM5 9JS

Share this agenda point

EPF/2176/24 - 16 and 18 Castle Street, Ongar, CM5 9JS

Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Sue Jones
Public Speaker
Cllr Sue Jones
Public Speaker
Cllr Sue Jones
Public Speaker
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Sue Jones
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Martin Morris
Amanda Apcar
Cllr Martin Morris
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Will Kauffman
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Will Kauffman
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Alan Lion

8 EPF/1216/25 - Land East of Tawney Common, Theydon Mount, Epping, Essex, CM16 7PU

Share this agenda point

EPF/1216/25 - Land East of Tawney Common, Theydon Mount, Epping, Essex, CM16 7PU

Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Alan Lion
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Alan Lion
Public Speaker
Cllr Alan Lion
Public Speaker
Cllr Alan Lion
Public Speaker
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Lisa Morgan
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Paul Keska
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Clive Amos
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Holly Whitbread
Cllr Alan Lion
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Mandy George
Cllr Mandy George
Cllr Alan Lion
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Martin Morris
Cllr Alan Lion
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Alan Lion
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Ken Williamson
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Alan Lion
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Mary Dadd
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Alan Lion

9 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

1 WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:00:06

Hello and good evening. Before we start tonight's meeting, I need to read the following webcast

announcement. 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 and public speakers are reminded to activate their microphones

before speaking and turn them off when they have finished.

Hello and welcome to tonight's meeting of Planning Committee B. My name is Councillor

Sue Jones and I am chairing tonight's meeting. I would just for the benefit of the webcast

and members of the public here, just like to do a few quick introductions and to talk

you through the who's who. So, as I said, I am chairing the meeting. To my immediate

right is Councillor Will Hoffman and he is our vice chair for tonight. To Will's right

we have Serena from Democratic Services who will be minuting and advising us. To my left

I have Muhammad Rahman who is our planning officer and he is presenting both cases on

tonight's agenda. To his left is Amanda Abcar who is here as our legal advice and representation

today. We have Steve on webcasting, but that is not Steve down there. Good evening, members.

I think Democratic Services have explained the procedure for tonight's meeting to everybody.

One thing I would like to emphasise is the importance of keeping your presentations to

the allocated three minutes. At the end of three minutes there will be a timer that rings

and I would ask you to wind up your presentation very quickly after that alarm rings.

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

If you continue, unfortunately I end up interrupting you and you won't be able to draw

your presentation to a proper conclusion. So please in the interest of fairness so that

everybody gets the right amount of time, please will you keep your presentations to three

minutes. Other than that, I think we are ready to proceed with the rest of the agenda. Item

2 we have actually covered for advice for public speakers of planning committees. So

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

I'm moving then on to item 3, which is apologies of absence. So Serena, thank you.

Serena Shani - 0:03:08

Yeah, it's Councillor Stocker and Councillor Lee have sent their apologies.

Thank you and substitute members.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:03:17

Serena Shani - 0:03:20

Okay, Councillor Church will be substituting for Councillor Stocker for the entire meeting.

Councillor Holly Whitbread will be substituting for Councillor Lee for the entire meeting.

Councillor Lyon will be substituting for Councillor Dad on item seven of the agenda.

Councillor Lyon will be substituting for Councillor Jones on item 8 of the agenda

and Councillor George will substitute for Clive Amos, Councillor Amos during item 8.

4 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:03:49

Thank you very much indeed. Right if I can just explain a little bit further

there's going to be a little bit of movement around the Chamber this evening

and this is purely because ward members cannot actually take part in the

discussion and decision of applications

within our own wards.

We can speak to the members

and we can present our residents opinions,

but we cannot actually take part in the voting.

So during the first item,

Councillor Dadd will move to the other side of the chamber

and then we will carry on the discussions.

And then during the second item, I will move.

And Councillor Lyon is having a bit

of a split personality this evening,

because he is either going to be representing myself,

well, not representing me, sorry,

he is going to be substituting

for Councillor Dadd or myself.

Okay, so,

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

members, any declarations of interest at this time?

Councillor Williamson.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:04:53

I was approached by two, sorry, it's EPF 121625.

I was approached by two residents at the opening of the Epping Leisure Centre and I did have

a subsequent meeting.

At no time did I discuss any detail about this application, just giving advice or general

advice as to how the committee system worked.

It was brought to my attention after that that my name appears in some of the leaflets

for one of the organisations trying to stop the solar farm.

It is in fact a quote that I gave in November

regarding the Bell Hotel.

It's nothing to do with this application at all.

And underneath is a photograph.

I'm not in that photograph.

I never have been in the photograph or held a placard.

And I just like to say,

and I think it goes for most of us here.

As a district councillor,

I represent the residents of Buckhurst Hill West.

They're the people that elected me to this chamber.

But as a member of this planning committee

and as a member of cabinet,

I represent all of the residents of Epping Forest.

I think that hopefully makes everything clear.

No, thank you very much for that clarification.

Thank you.

Any further declarations members?

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:06:12

Councillor Whitbread.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:06:17

Similar declaration to Councillor Williamson.

I had a conversation with two members of the public at the Sports Centre opening,

just information around the application.

Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:06:29

Right, moving then on to item six please.

6 MINUTES

The minutes, members the minutes have been circulated.

Are there any comments?

In that case members are you happy that I signed those meetings as...

Meetings?

I signed those meeting...

minutes as I sign those minutes as a true representation of the meeting. Thank you members.

And that takes us now onto the planning items on tonight's agenda. So item seven is EPF

7 EPF/2176/24 - 16 and 18 Castle Street, Ongar, CM5 9JS

stroke 2176 stroke 24 and this involves numbers 16 to 18 Castle Street, Onge and the report is on

pages of 9 to 19 of your agenda. I'm going to pass straight over to Mohamed to present

the case. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Chair, Members

and everyone. Just for everyone's information, the presentations tonight are only a summary

of the case and the full assessment is set out in detail within the agenda and the relevant

documents published under the case file. Members will have reviewed the case in full prior

to this meeting and we'll debate the case shortly.

So we start with item seven,

which relates to 16 and 18 Castle Street in Onger.

The application is before this committee

since there are five or more objections

and the officer recommendation is for approval

and a site visit was also held this Monday.

So we turn to the slides.

So here we have the location plan, we have the existing on the left and the proposed

block plan on the right. The proposal seeks to reconfigure the site to make more efficient

use of the land by separating the existing two dwellings into two independent parcels.

parcels. For clarity, there is no net gain of dwellings on site.

Here's an aerial view of the property, subject site outlined in red.

And here are the existing and proposed site plan. So you have the existing single building

and the proposed, you can see two independent parcels,

separate gardens, a new semi -detached building,

and parking spaces to the front.

Here are the existing and proposed street scene plan.

So on the top you have the existing street scene.

This is the existing building.

And below you have the proposed.

So as part of the proposal, this single storey extension would be demolished to make way

for the new extension over here.

And the existing four windows, which are considered to be harmful by the conservation team, are

to be bricked up and the wall matching the rest of the wall.

So, here's a picture of the property. So, this extension over here is to be demolished

along with this wall. And these four windows to be bricked up. Here's a different view.

So, these are the two separate dwellings currently on site. So, this build, existing building

is going to contain one dwelling and the new one, the other. So here's a view of the rear,

here's a view of the existing garden and this is the view of the existing driveway.

These two images show the double yellow lines existing on the street.

This is on the Chair's request, the public transport route for Onga.

The route number 20 does run through Onga to Eppin approximately every 30 minutes, give

will take seven days a week.

So the full merits of the case are set out within the agenda

and I'll just summarise the case.

Officers consider that the proposal,

particularly the new semi -detached dwelling,

reads as a subservient addition to the existing building

with a design that complements the character

and appearance of the street scene.

The conservation team support the proposal,

confirming that it will not result in harm

to the Onga Conservation Area. The proposal will not lead to significant harm to living

conditions of neighbouring properties from any harmful overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing

or visual impacts. The site is located within a sustainable area that benefits from a regular

bus service and there is limited on -street parking available. In this context, officers

consider the proposed level of on -site parking provision, while it's below their relied upon

parking standards is acceptable and there is no evidence to suggest that it

would result in severe parking stress. Members attention is also drawn to the

support provided by the highways team. For these reasons officer

recommendation is to grant conditional planning permission. Thank you.

Muhammad Rahman - 0:12:18

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:12:21

Thank you. We have three speakers on this item. The first speaker is an objection

Hilary Smith. Good evening. Yes if you just press the button and the red light

will appear. Thank you. Good evening my name is Hilary Smith and I live at number 18a

Public Speaker - 0:12:35

Castle Street. The residents of Castle Street object to this proposed

planning application for the following reasons. Firstly, parking. Parking is an

issue, an ongoing issue, despite the double yellow lines. I won't elaborate

any further because I believe there are other people going to speak about this

problem. Secondly, noise. The plan includes the installation of two heat pumps,

Despite its proximity to the busy High Street, Castle Street is a very quiet

turning. The noise created by the heat pumps will be extremely noticeable and

will intrude on the peace and quiet of the residents. We object on the grounds

of overdevelopment. The site of the two cottages is not large. The current

dwellings are two tiny 19th century cottages situated at the pinch point of

a narrow road, so narrow that there isn't sufficient room for a full -width

pedestrian pavement. Yes, the existing buildings need renovation and refurbishment, but squashing

in an additional building is quite simply overcrowding.

Conservation is another concern. Castle Street is within the Onga Conservation Area. Plans

for this development were rejected previously on the grounds that, and I'm quoting here,

the location of the proposed development would likely affect the setting of a scheduled monument.

The historic building in question is No. 10 Castle Street.

On this latest incarnation of the proposed plans,

the proposed new building has been shaved off a few feet from the previous one.

The windows have been changed, but the fact remains that No. 10 Castle Street isn't exactly

the same as it was on the two previous occasions when planning permission was sought and refused.

The existing properties are the second oldest buildings in Castle Street. They do not face

on to the street, which is totally in keeping with architecture of the Victorian era. The

historic nature of this section of the road. Lastly, my personal objection is on the grounds

of privacy. Currently, my small, secluded, walled garden is not directly overlooked by

any of my neighbours. If this development goes ahead, the window at the rear bedroom

of the new house will look directly into my garden. What the plans do not show is that

ground slopes towards my house. At the boundary wall there is a drop of over 30 centimetres.

At the proposed building site the difference is more than two feet. Added to the height

of the building this will provide a view of my entire previously unoverlooked garden.

Thank you for listening.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:15:35

Thank you very much indeed. If you could just turn your microphone off that would be really

Great, thanks very much indeed.

Our second speaker is Councillor Chris Ray

from Onga Parish Council.

Good evening, Councillor.

Onga Town Council urge councillors

Public Speaker - 0:15:49

to reject this application.

This parking is absurdly non -compliant

with Essex minimum parking standards

and Onga neighbourhood plan policy CT3.

Castle Street is currently a highly stressed parking area

and most of the street is double yellow lined

and limited on -street parking.

And with the addition of a recent HMO at Essex House,

a seven unit item has no parking,

a shortfall of nine parking spaces.

And this is on the same street

and adding to the parking stress.

Currently Essex minimum parking standards

for these properties would require five spaces,

two for each property and one visitor space.

These plans are two spaces short.

Our neighbourhood plan policy CT3 is clear that the minimum parking standards must be met.

The case officers' argument about connectivity is factually incorrect.

Onga has been assessed and defined as not being high or very high connectivity.

The minimum standards therefore apply.

In addition, the allocation of the parking to these properties will also

cause issues. The two bedroom property has two parking spaces allocated whereas

the three bedroom property only has one parking space, another factor that would

cause additional parking stress. The current existing properties today are

compliant, they have five parking spaces. The Highways Authority do not assess and

comment on parking spaces.

Hence, the non -compliance of parking

is an indefensible parking shortfall

and will result in additional parking stress.

In summary, there is no justification

for approving this application.

It is non -compliant for parking spaces

in a stressed parking area in ongoing conservation area.

It is non -compliant with neighbourhood policy

and is a valid and a compelling reason

to reject this application.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:17:54

Thank you. Thank you. And the final speaker on this item is David Fowler, the agent. Good

Public Speaker - 0:18:04

evening. Good evening. Thank you for hearing me for tonight, tonight, and for considering

the planning application for 16 and 18 Castle Street. My grandmother bought these cottages

in the early 70s to live in after my grandfather died in 1965. She lived first in number 16

and number 18 till her death.

My aunt inherited them, sold them to my mother

who gifted them to me and my sister -in -law a few years ago.

I remember them as perfect homes for granny.

We used to visit and walk to the high street

through the churchyard, particularly for sweets and toys.

However, I've long felt that they are not good enough

for modern living with poor insulation, ugly extensions,

difficult and inadequate parking

and effectively no garden for number 16

because of the building orientation and the difficult parking.

For five years I have been trying to upgrade and these plans have gone through many changes.

I'd like to thank the council officers for their help in getting to this point, especially

with aspects of heritage, which I did not properly appreciate.

The proposals removes the flat roof extensions, replaces the windows with sashes, removes

the high level modern slit windows to the roadside, improves the off street parking

in spite of what's been said and divides the garden in two usable areas.

Number 16 is rebuilt as a totally new complimentary house as was pointed out.

These will be well insulated homes providing good living spaces while in my view enhancing

the look of the street and preserving the heritage of the original farm workers cottages.

Removing the flat roof extensions is an obvious thing to benefit that.

I believe they will not unduly impinge on my neighbours

and will endeavour to work with them throughout the building process

to minimise disruption.

Thank you again.

Thank you very much indeed.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:20:05

I do apologise, I think I actually introduced you incorrectly.

You are the applicant rather than an agent, aren't you?

So I do apologise, thank you.

Right, now if we'd like to turn to ward councillors, we've got Councillor Dadd, who's already got

her hand up, thank you. So we do have Councillor Dadd as a ward member, if you'd like to address

the committee. Thank you, Chairman. I've looked at this over

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:20:37

the years when the different applications have come in. What is really important is

the heritage of the conservation area and those little cottages at the moment

represented the end of the development up until the 20th century.

And the appraisal, EFDC's appraisal of the Tippecanonga Conservation Area

is very clear about the significance of this part of Onga

and the views from the high street

with the key one being number 10

and finishing up with those cottages

which are sideways on.

One of the problems as we know is parking stress in Onga

and Castle Street is not, you know, does have problems as well.

Area 4, which if you don't mind if I just read it out, Castle Street and St. Martin's Church, which is that part,

it does say that at the junction of the High Street, Castle Street is tightly enclosed by terraced houses

and Essex House, which are all situated at the back edge of pavement.

This effect is enhanced by the fine red brick house number 10, which acts as a local point

in views from the high street.

The enclosed nature of these two approaches, the centre of Castle Street, is open and dominated

by an area of service yards and car parking which detract from the character of this part

of the conservation area.

The enclosure of Castle Street is regained by the line of mature trees along the northern boundary.

We saw that at the site visit, but just because that part with the parking detracts from a conservation area,

should not mean that any more detraction to do with off -street parking should happen.

and what concerns me about, well several things concern me, four things concern me,

but the conservation area on the neighbourhood plan policy ED1, part of

that says that there should be an uncluttered public realm and the Essex

design guide indicates that if you have on street, off street parking as the

frontage, that spoils the public domain. The rest of the conservation area, what typically

is the houses or shops, are right on the pavement or there is a small garden. This now introduces

an area which would just be parking, not garden. And that would be completely out of keeping.

So that's contrary to ED2 and also Essex Design Guide. The second one is, I do feel

it is overdevelopment generally.

And in fact, if you look at the space between the new number

16 and the boundary wall to the rear, which is to the south,

that is merely about nine metres.

That's not very much when you consider overlooking people

as only private amenity space.

And there is nothing in this to show

that there's going to be any way of any buffers or to prevent an upstairs window

at moment there's no upstairs window an upstairs window directly looking private

patio area and that to me is contrary to local plan policy DM 9 privacy and

community, I think it's section one, but planners will know what that is.

In Mardin Ash, another development had a similar problem where it was right angles to another

house, but it's not back to back, it's side on, 90 degrees, and they were quite sympathetic

to that they put in conditions to make sure that there was proper buffering and landscaping

and also the first floor had to be within the eaves and had a v -lapse window that had

to be higher than sight lines if you like so there was no overlooking and this could

easily have been done at this particular place. And then lastly and most importantly, well

policy. Now I've corrected, excuse me, planning officer, I've corrected more than one planning

officer, in fact I've reported it to our director that on the neighbourhood plan, it's the only

town neighbourhood plan in the district, we know from highways when we've come to have

training that they actually look at the effect on the highways, they do not unless specifically

asked look at whether it complies with parking policy. On the neighbourhood plan

ONGCT3 specifically says that it will be based it will providing sufficient

off -street parking facilities to support the higher levels of car ownership in

Onga as a primary rural area including multiple house multiple car households

by using Essings Parking Standards 2009 or successor standards. Now the new

parking standards quite clearly say that if it's a one bedroom you can have one

parking space as minimum and two will be two minimum. This is, there's no and also

says that it's in an area that is not suitable to reduce that minimum. In fact

in the neighbourhood plan which is footnote 133, Essex highways in 2021

objected to flats being built with lower than Essex parking standards at the

south end of Onga high street and they went on to actually say the highways

authority they recommend in in in parking standards 2009 recommends

minimum parking provision for residential properties and it says

quite specifically the highway authority does not consider

ongoing to be an accessible location in terms of good access

to other modes of sustainable travel and consequently a reduction in the

parking provision would not be supported in this location

and if you look at the um ons statistics for 2021 more than 50

of the working population live in the london area

by necessity they need cars.

So this would go if it went through.

This is quite clearly contrary to ONG CT3

because it says must.

Not should, but must.

And then lastly, I wanted to actually comment

about the setting of ancient monuments.

It was brought up in the conservation report that there was a query about whether they

had actually contacted, as is required, Historic England about any ill effects on the setting

of the ancient monument of Onga Castle.

and I'm not sure whether that's happened and it is an obligation on the LPA.

And then the other thing that was raised by place services was that there perhaps should

be an archeological survey but I couldn't find anything about that in the officer's

report.

I think I have finished there but if I could come back if there are any queries I would

be grateful. Thank you.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:29:06

Thank you. Right, I don't think any other ward members want to, right, okay. Before

we open up to members do you want to just come back on a few points on that? Thank you.

Muhammad Rahman - 0:29:17

Just a few clarifications. So Historic England have been consulted, they have provided comments.

They have been consulted. The comments are published under the case file.

Specifically on the setting of the monument? Yes, they have been consulted on the application.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:29:36

Thank you. Members, I would like to open up for discussion. Anybody got any comments?

Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:29:46

Councillor Williamson, thank you. Thank you, Chair. The site visit on Monday

I think it was incredibly important, I think,

in looking at this application.

I can see little merit in the building

as it stands in the conservation area.

I've done a lot of work recently

on the Buckhurst Hill Conservation Area,

and that follows the buildings.

So it has a very jagged line.

It is not an overall sort of area.

It cuts in and out where modern buildings

have been introduced into the area.

And it really does concentrate on the old buildings

that need to be conserved.

The Chipping Onga Conservation Area

is an overarching circle around the whole

of the main centre of the town.

On the site visit, there are modern buildings

opposite this particular particular site there are modern modern when I say

modern eighties seventies eighties buildings in the area I can see no merit

in the buildings as they stand and and as to the view from the high street I

understand I walked up it I parked further along longer and walked around I

I understand the importance of the view from the high street, but this can't be seen from

the high street.

You've gone round the bend by the time you get there.

I really struggle to find a reason not to approve this application.

I take on board the parking requirements.

Sometimes we have to make a pragmatic view and take a pragmatic view.

I think this is one of those cases.

I was quite surprised when I saw the actual site and I think this would

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:31:52

improve the area. Thank you. Any further comments? Councillor Morris. I just wanted to

Cllr Martin Morris - 0:31:56

raise a couple of points. One on heat pump noise, is there any issue with this? I mean

is this being covered in the application in any way? The heat pumps are... Sorry can I just ask the second

question then you can do them both together.

Amanda Apcar - 0:32:07

Cllr Martin Morris - 0:32:08

And the overlooking of the house at the bottom of the

garden because it's a downward slope,

are there any conditions that can be used to offset that?

That's just two questions.

Muhammad Rahman - 0:32:19

And for the first, heat pumps are not part of the proposal.

So that was a, that was inaccurate.

For the second question, we have taken a view.

Officers don't consider the overlooking harm to be

significant to warrant a reason for refusal.

Now the only window looking at number 18A to the rear

is a bedroom window, so having the obscure glaze

may restrict the reasonable outlook and light levels

for the occupants of that bedroom.

There are, the windows on the flank wall

are proposed to be obscure glazed

to prevent overlooking to the next door property.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:33:07

Thank you.

Councillor Lyon.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:33:13

Yes, I was part of the site visit on Monday and I was quite disappointed at the outlook

of the property.

That extension was more like an air aid shelter than part of a house.

and alongside it there was a sort of a temporary roof

that was joining this particular extension

to the main property.

So I think that is quite an eyesore.

The other concern I had was that parking,

there were considered to be one car after another.

So if you look at the tracks there,

you will see that cars are parked behind each other.

I mean, there was a suggestion that once you've got

through that narrow gap, they could park alongside,

but I'm not sure how effective that parking is.

And if you've got one car parked at the beginning,

whether they would actually block the rest of the site,

it requires quite a lot of cooperation

between those people parking

that would actually make it usable.

So, in my mind, three spaces independently assessed or independently provided spaces

would be an advantage.

So I think it does look rather unsightly and considering there's two properties there,

this would make quite an interesting proposition.

The other thing is just across the road is an industrial state, there's a number of businesses

operating out of what was considered to be a hall.

And there are quite a lot of mixed modern developments.

If you can see to the right -hand side, that roof is a modern property.

So right adjacent to this, there's modern properties.

And all the way along the road, there's modern properties.

So I'm not too sure of the sustainability of this particular situation as it is.

and I think there may be an advantage

at providing two independent dwellings.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Councillor Dadd, I think you asked to come back.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:35:27

Thank you, if you don't mind if I came back.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:35:30

The query was how useful those car parking spaces was

and typically there are five there

and once you get to Narrowby, they double park

and in fact, when I went there on Sunday,

there were three there at the time

and I'm sure that residents will confirm on that point.

And I'm sorry, I didn't perhaps make myself clear

that I don't think there's any question

in most people's mind that it does look unsightly

and what is being proposed looks nice.

What my main concern is the parking

and it's not compliant with policy.

And what's the point of having policy

that says must if you ignore it.

Thank you.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:36:18

Is there any more to say about that?

All right.

Anyway, yes.

Councillor Cooper.

Thank you, Chair.

I was just going to raise one question, just as a point that I just don't quite understand

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:36:32

yet, which is that in the executive summary it says the Conservation Office confirms no

harm to heritage significance.

And then if you look at the portal it says that there is a standing objection from the conservation officers

Which one is true?

Muhammad Rahman - 0:36:50

The latest comment was published on the 8th of December which

Said email

It confirms there's no objection

Can I ask what was the reason of that because you can't download that

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:37:03

It's a foul, it doesn't work, it's a corrupted form of a plan. What changed her mind?

Muhammad Rahman - 0:37:08

The revisions, the plans were amended since the second set of comments.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:37:23

Right, members, any further comments?

In that case I would like to take this item to the vote.

The recommendation is to grant planning permission.

All those in favour of granting, please show.

Seven, Chair.

Any against?

And abstentions?

One, Chair.

Thank you.

Planning permission is therefore granted.

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:37:53

Thank you.

Right, members of the public,

So if you just bear with us while we just change places a little bit and then we will proceed.

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:38:51

So Community Landscaping has been assessed, no objection by landscape team, construction,

condition 21 which are updated yesterday, just to recover if they both start, whoever

is the later one, they need to revise the CTMP.

8 EPF/1216/25 - Land East of Tawney Common, Theydon Mount, Epping, Essex, CM16 7PU

Whose phone is that?

Is that?

Councillor Jones.

So, you've got your phone.

Good evening, members.

Good evening to the members of the public that are in the gallery.

You will note that we have changed positions.

I am chairing this section because Councillor Jones is an award member and will be speaking

on the item.

That is why we have done this.

Okay, so we're moving on to item eight on the agenda, and it's EPF stroke 1216 stroke

25.

And it's an applicant by IBV Thrift Solar Limited.

And I'll hand over to Mr. Ahmed to explain the items.

Muhammad Rahman - 0:40:45

It has just been pointed out to me that the actual officer's report has been slightly

incorrectly numbered and on page 37 item 13 and the condition 14 is just the last

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:41:31

sentence of mayor which begins MPPF and then there is prior to commencement of

the development, the existing two fields access

may be upgraded and improved.

So that is really item 14.

There was a correction that didn't get implemented.

So all the numbers from 14 onwards would,

so that becomes 14 and the rest of them

will be numbered accordingly.

So for members benefit.

Okay, we will now carry on with the item.

Muhammad Rahman - 0:42:07

Thank you, Chair. So item A relates to Frift Solar Farm located in Tawney Common. This

application is before the committee since there are five or more objections and the

officer recommendation is for approval and along with the previous item, members site

visit took place this Monday. Just before we get into the proposal, officers have made

slight modifications to condition 7 which is on the screen around archaeology.

The wording highlighted in red is the amendment.

So that's the condition 7 around archaeology.

So the revised wording reads no development shall commence until a written scheme of investigation

prepared in accordance with the archeological management plan by Cotswold

followed by a completed archeological evaluation and subsequent mitigation

strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The

second change has been made to condition 21 around the construction traffic

management plan. Just to clarify that should the adjacent solar farm

from Nick Ellen's comments and if this one is granted,

then the construction traffic management plan

needs to be updated to ensure there's no harm

to the local highway network from both of them

operating together.

Okay, so that's the new 21.

That's the new 21.

Which was written as number 20 is now 21.

That's correct.

Okay.

So the proposal is for a solar farm along with battery energy storage systems.

Here we have the location plan, the site outline in red.

So you have Epping Road to the north, Collier's hatch over here and Wood hatch over here and

Tawny Lane coming down.

So here is the proposed layout.

out. The blue elements represent the solar arrays. This section over here is for the

battery storage. And you have two public rights over here crossing the site along here. And

On this plan it's not visible but there are various landscape enhancements proposed all

across the site.

So here's a detailed view of the proposed solar arrays over here and the battery containers

over here.

Here's a viewpoint from Tawny Lane.

So the first one shows as current, the middle image shows during the first year following

construction and the final image shows after 15 years the mature hedging and the views

to the site.

And again here's another view from Tawney Common.

plan. Again, as current with the solar panels and the mature hedging.

So this was up on the Chair's request. This is not a material planning consideration,

just for informative purposes. This is the indicative cable route from the site. So we

the site over here and the indicative cable route all the way to Fonwood substation. The

final details will be fleshed out with the power company, but this sits outside the planning

application. So the full assessment is set out in the agenda and I will just draw the

key points. Officers consider that this proposal represents a well -balanced scheme. It follows

a detailed and lengthy pre -application process involving the applicant planning officers

and the council's landscape team. The layout has been carefully designed and when we consider

it together with the consented solar farm next door at Nicklelands Farm, the overall

landscape impact is judged to be acceptable. It will not cause undue harm to the rural

landscape character provided the proposed landscape enhancements are delivered.

And if both solar farms come forward at the same time, a coordinated construction approach

will need to be taken as reference to in the beginning of the presentation.

And this will ensure that any disruption from construction traffic is kept to a minimum.

The proposal meets Greenbelt policy requirements, safeguards neighbouring residents from harmful

GLINT and GLARE, protects the safe and efficient use of the highway network, ensures no adverse

impact on the integrity of the Epping Forest. While there is some less than substantial

harm to nearby heritage assets, the test in the National Planning Policy Framework requires

us to balance this against the public benefits. As set out in the agenda, officers consider

that the public benefits clearly outweigh this heritage harm. The farmer has also explained

that this field represents only a small part of the wider farm holdings, less than 5%,

and is no longer commercially viable due to poor productivity.

Members are therefore asked to consider what is the best use of this land.

Officers are satisfied that the proposal aligns with national objectives for achieving net zero

carbon by 2050 and supports the Council's own target for carbon neutrality by 2030.

The scheme would make a significant contribution generating around 26 .8 gigawatt hours of clean

electricity a year, enough to meet the annual energy needs of approximately 8 ,123 homes.

For these reasons, the officer recommendation is to grant conditional planning permission

subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the PNG monitoring

fees.

Thank you, chair.

That's it.

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:48:57

Thank you. We have a number of speakers on this particular item. So we have first an

objector, Malcolm Hitching, in person. You have three minutes.

Public Speaker - 0:49:11

Thank you very much. Good evening. I've been asked to speak on behalf of the residence

group which opposes the application. For context, I live locally and I'm also a senior partner

in one of the country's leading law firms. Residents do not oppose renewable energy and

have accepted the scheme at Nicklelands next door to thrift. However more than

3 ,000 individuals have signed a petition asking you to reject this scheme and

each of the town and parish councils affected are strongly opposed. The

planning officer has recommended approval but the legal and planning

arguments are a long way from clear -cut. You will have seen considerable

correspondence from the residents group in recent days flagging a series of

concerns, but given time constraints I would just highlight the following.

Firstly, the UK has an overwhelming need for food security and there is a strong legal

presumption against building on best and most versatile agricultural land. It should be

built on only if there is an overwhelming and urgent need. There is no such need and

even if there were, the Nickolons' development meets it.

Secondly, your own Heritage Department has deemed the Thrift scheme to be quote unacceptable,

given the cumulative harm to heritage buildings and has given a clear recommendation that

the application should be refused. Please do not disregard that expert advice.

Thirdly, Thrift is an inappropriate development in the Greenbelt. To be deemed otherwise,

all of the conditions set out in the relevant legislation have to be met, including evidence

that there is, quotes, an unmet need for the type of development proposed. In its own site

justification report, the developer admits that there is no such need. Even if there

was, it's met by Nickolons. There is no need for two large solar schemes next door

to each other. Fourthly, the proposal before you is materially incomplete, since thrift

cannot be built in isolation.

It's useless unless connected to the national grid

and cannot be approved unless the true impact of that scheme

can be assessed.

Without a detailed plan for connexion, that's not possible.

And this application must be considered

in the context of the long -term chaos and pollution that

would be caused by the four miles of cabling

works necessary to connect thrift to the grid.

Finally, you have a strict legal duty

to protect Epping Forest and the recent solar application at West Essex Golf Club was rejected

by the planning inspectors on that basis. You have to take a precautionary approach

and you must look at thrift in combination quotes with all other works that might be

relevant that includes connexion to the grid. The planning officer has given no weight to

these requirements, I suggest that they are absolutely fundamental and cannot be ignored.

Please do set aside any concerns that you might have relating to the cost of an appeal.

The threat of an appeal should not dictate local decisions. Please vote on the merits

of this scheme rather than in fear of a developer's appetite for legal appeals. We urge you please

to stand up for local people. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We now have...

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:52:32

Thank you.

Can I ask people, members of the public, to please refrain from joining in?

I realise that you're quite supportive of that comment, but if you could keep quiet

and allow the meeting to continue, I would appreciate that.

Okay.

We now have a further comment from Councillor Steve Green in person from Stapleford Tawny

Parish Council.

Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:53:11

It is no overstatement to say that this is the most serious and impactful proposal to

affect Stapleford Tawny.

This development, if approved, would entirely and negatively change the character of a unique

rural landscape, one that is highly valued by the local community and by ramblers, cyclists,

dog walkers and horse riders and the many people who regularly visit.

What is under consideration this evening is the total transformation of a small historic

rural community, the loss of the area's identity and long -lasting visual harm to the Essex

countryside.

In addition to the concerns raised by the residents group, we wish to highlight the

following four points.

Number one, the proposed site directly abuts

the approved Nicklin solar farm.

Approval of this proposal would create significant

cumulative visual harm to the landscape.

The two schemes would together form a single contiguous

solar complex of more than 150 acres,

altering the landscape at a scale not properly reflected

in the application.

While we appreciate that each scheme must be determined

on its own merits, we ask that the combined impact

of the two adjoining sites be considered.

Two, the applicant's plan to mitigate the development

by planting hedgerows and trees is inadequate.

The site is framed by open elevated countryside

with far -reaching views, making screening impossible.

It will take 10 to 20 years for new plants to mature,

causing immediate visual harm for almost half

of solar farms' intended operational life.

Even when fully grown, the site would remain clearly visible

from many viewpoints.

We strongly feel the photo montages in the application

and misleading and seriously underplay the visual impact.

Three, the Dog House pub is a vital

and much loved community asset,

providing a social setting for locals and visitors.

A key part of the pub's appeal is its rural setting,

a feature that attracts patrons from outside the area

who are looking for a traditional countryside pub experience.

The proposed development is directly to the rear

and side of the Dog House.

If this proposal is approved,

it would fundamentally alter a patron's experience,

especially during construction.

Residents fear this would have long -term consequences

for its viability as a rural business.

The development number four would have an unacceptable impact

on public rights of way, enclosing well -used footpaths

and transforming open country walks into fenced corridors

with intervals of CCTV towers.

This changes an open rural experience

into one of passing through an industrial facility.

In conclusion, our objections are not a case of NIMBYism.

This parish council is supportive of appropriately located solar schemes.

We did not object to the Nicklin solar farm and there was no strong opposition from residents.

But this development is very much in the wrong place.

It is universally unpopular and opposed by the parish councils of Epping, Onga, Thayden Mount, Stanford Rivers, North Weald and thousands of local people.

You have before you the most consequential decision in the history of our parish.

We respectfully ask this committee to preserve the rural setting of Tawney Common and its

heritage assets and to stand with its residents and with the horse riders, cyclists, dog walkers

and ramblers, its many visitors and the 3 ,000 people who put their names to the residents

group's petition.

Please reject this proposal.

Thank you.

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:56:25

We now have the agent, Andrew Dow, in person.

Public Speaker - 0:56:35

You have three minutes. Thank you. Chair, members, thank you for the opportunity

to address you today on behalf of IBV Thrift Solar Limited. This scheme has been shaped

through extensive technical assessment and stakeholder engagement. It is a responsible

landscape -led solar and battery storage proposal that will contribute meaningfully to Epping

forest transition to a low carbon secure energy future.

National policy is unequivocal. The UK must accelerate renewable energy deployment. The

MPPF, the 2024 written ministerial statement and national policy statements all confirm

solar's essential role in achieving net zero. While lower grade land is preferred, the use

best and most versatile land is not prohibited or justified and this application demonstrates.

Crucially this is a temporary 40 year permission. Panel heights allow for grazing beneath and

around the panels and at decommissioning all equipment will be removed and the land fully

restored. Over decades without intensive cultivation or pesticides soil quality may improve. The

The benefits are tangible.

It will generate enough electricity for around 8 ,000

homes, offsetting over 4 ,900 tonnes of CO2 annually, nearly

200 ,000 tonnes over its lifetime.

The co -located battery system strengthens grid resilience,

reducing reliance on fossil fuels at peak demand.

These are real, measurable contributions

to both national and local climate goals.

Importantly, the scheme has a firm grid connexion.

This underlines the deliverability and real -world impacts of this project.

The proposal has also received strong local support, with 179 letters of support submitted

from the Authority area, reflecting clear community backing for renewable energy and

climate action in this location.

Biodiversity gains are also substantial.

New hedgerows, woodland, meadows and habitat corridors contribute to biodiversity net gain,

which significantly exceeds policy expectations. The land involved represents a very small

proportion of a much larger multi -farm agricultural business and is among the least productive

land within that holding. The scheme provides a stable income that helps sustain farming

across the wider estate, supports continued agriculture elsewhere and enables long -term

investment in land management and soil quality. Heritage impacts are limited where less than

substantial harm is identified. Paragraph 215 of the MPPF requires balancing against

public benefits. Here the benefits, generation of renewable energy, biodiversity and farm

resilience clearly outweigh the limited harm.

For these reasons, Chair, we respectfully ask members

to support your officer's recommendation

and grant planning permission.

Thank you.

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:59:50

Okay, we have an additional speaker, Tom Bromwich,

as a sort of Associate Ward Councillor,

but I don't see him here on screen.

Sorry, can I share Lisa's screen?

Sorry, Councillor Munk.

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:00:07

Yes, sorry, Tom Bromwich asked me to stand in for him to do it because he couldn't get

online. I thought he got a work call that he had to attend a meeting.

We were only allowing him as a potential ward councillor. I don't believe that's something

within the constitution. Councillor Jones.

Whether you allow Councillor Bromwich to speak is obviously at your discretion. He is on

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:00:26

Cllr Sue Jones - 1:00:28

the list as registered to speak. I think we perhaps should turn to ward members before

because Councillor Bromwich isn't actually a ward member.

OK, I think you're quite right there.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:00:37

Councillor Kesker, you wanted to make some comment?

A short comment, Chairman, if I might.

Just to say, as a planning portfolio holder,

I'm involved in it not in any way as a ward member.

In general terms, the EFDC is not

in favour of giving up farmland for industrial use,

even as there are attempts to describe it as a grey belt,

although we understand the financial pressures on farmers.

Cllr Paul Keska - 1:01:01

The committee must decide this entirely on its merits, but they must also be aware of

a number of recent appeal decisions which have gone against local planning authorities.

That's all.

Thank you very much.

Right, ward councillors.

Councillor Jones.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:01:18

Cllr Sue Jones - 1:01:20

I'm going to just make a series of points.

Typical.

I have now changed everything to following the speakers.

These points are not coming out in any order of priority, but in fact each of them are

important.

I always find it difficult when we are told in our reports that any decision to refuse

would need to be based on robust event with planning conditions if these go to appeal.

Now, we are told that if it goes to appeal and we lose, we get costs.

But the most important part here is, as we're told in the report, as long as we are giving

very sound planning and material planning reasons, then it is only then that the council

is going to be vulnerable.

We are fully aware that the recent appeal after we refused the West Essex Golf Club,

We were given similar advice on that one and the fear of if anything goes to appeal, and

yet that has gone to appeal and in fact our decision was backed up by that appeal.

So as long as we have got genuine, robust reasons to refuse this application, there

is no problem.

And in fact the speakers today have made it very easy for us because we do have very clear

They have provided very clear reasons why this application is completely wrong for this

site. Their reasons for objection have been calmly put forward. They are based on planning

merit. We are told time and time again we must not be emotional on these applications,

But it is very hard not to be emotional when the swathes of Virgin Greenbelt are going

to be totally destroyed by this application.

I would like to mention the letters of support that the agent mentioned.

I wasn't actually going to, but I would just like to point out a few things.

If you look at the reasons that these 179 letters of support gave, to me the reasons

they give make it very clear that they're not actually that familiar with the site and

indeed its impact on our rural landscape.

They are very general reasons that they could in fact apply to any application for any solar

power or indeed any other form of power source.

Whereas the letters of objection very clearly in my mind come from genuine residents who

have genuine concern about the impact of this application that is so close and is such a

valuable landscape. So yes, we can't, but I think we also do have to remember of course

the petition is mentioned in the report but easy to forget. So yes, there were so many

letters for objecting, I personally feel that the letters of support do indicate that people

possibly are in support and not as local as those objecting.

Greenbelt. It is so soul destroying to see the threats upon our greenbelt. But the report

clearly says that currently this site is open agricultural land. It is virgin

greebelt and to even suggest putting an array of solar panels on this

site is beyond my belief and comprehension if I'm honest.

It's very, you know, the sort of, it's, sorry I've lost my train of thought, sorry, but it really is.

And sort of the report tries to muddy the idea and the introduction of the idea of grey belt.

This is not Greybelt. It is a rolling rural landscape and we must, must protect it.

I would also like to draw your attention to something in the report that's actually quite

unusual. We have objections not only from State River Tawny Parish Council, we have

objections from Stanford Rivers Parish Council, we have objections from Thayden Mount Parish

Council. Thayden Mount Parish Council did actually want to speak at tonight's meeting.

Unfortunately, our protocol doesn't allow that, but they are very concerned. Both Northwield

and Onge Town Council have recorded their support of the objections of those parish

councils. I can't remember a last time that I read a Planning Office report with objections

so clearly from so many parish councils. It does really show and demonstrate the far -reaching

impact this application is going to have. I would draw your attention please to the

heritage aspects. The Council's own conservation team consider there to be harm to nearby heritage

assets. We must listen to our own officers.

Two final points. We're told that this is temporary. Now, I find it very hard to think

of temporary as being 40 years. It means that I certainly probably won't be around to see

this taken apart. As you start looking at the temporary nature, we have to then think

about the impact of removing it. Actually, condition four, there's no reference throughout

this report as to how the costs of removal are going to be met. Now, the company wanting

to put these up, with solar energy already being conditioned as being efficient, there's

no guarantee the company is going to be around in 40 years to actually dismantle it.

Other applications for other solar farms across the country have actually included fine details

of how the demolition of the site is going to be funded.

And indeed funds have been put aside in some cases.

There's also great concern about the unknown impact

of these sites.

I'm no expert, wouldn't pretend to be,

but it's worrying the information that is available

about potential contamination.

So finally, to sum up, I really would urge members to consider whether this application

can in any way be considered as appropriate in this. As I said previously, we're told

that we should not be emotional, but when we consider the negative impact this proposal

will cause, it is really hard not to. This is pure rule. It was very noticeable when

on to the site visit. We actually drove from Onga, so we had a previous site visit on Onga.

And that picturesque drive, I found myself thinking on that drive, well it can't be coming

out this far, but of course it is. That's the plan. Acres and acres of absolute rolling

landscape could be absolutely ruined if this application goes ahead. It was sad to see

the signs that members of the public had to put up to try and get support. The signs that

we normally see down that road are normally signs about trying to avoid ducks crossing

the road. That is the rural nature of this area and there is no place for it, in my opinion,

for a solar farm. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Amos.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Clive Amos - 1:10:27

Being the third one to speak on this,

I find that most of what I was going to say

has already been said,

but I certainly concur fully

with what the objectives have said this evening

and what Councillor Jones has said.

Like most people here, I'm not against renewable energy

and I'm not against solar panels,

but in the right place.

And this certainly is not the right place.

We are told, rightly, we have to consider

each application on its merit.

And that's fair enough.

But we have to look at the wider aspect.

And I saw a report four or five weeks ago

as to how many acres within Epping Forest District Council

have been or are proposed to be allocated for solar farms.

And that is the loss of arable land.

I am totally opposed to the loss of food production.

I understand at the moment in this country, we only produce 50 % of the food that we need.

We have to import 50%.

Well, given the volatile nature of geopolitics at the moment, we can't afford to reduce that.

We must maintain that particular level.

and I say that where the harm occurs, substantial harm occurs,

because of the removal of arable land.

There is a comment about sheep grazing with the solar panels.

I cannot believe it. What are they doing?

Going to duck underneath the solar panels?

I don't want to be facetious, but I just could not believe that one.

We've heard about the green belt,

We've heard about the visual aspects,

and we've heard about the heritage.

I won't go over what everybody else has already said,

but I too would urge the committee

to reject this application.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

We've heard from speakers now.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:12:32

I'm sorry that Councillor Bromwich is not around

to be able to speak, and I'll hand over to members.

OK, Councillor Dab.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:12:47

Thank you, Chairman. I'm inclined to agree with the objectors and the Councillors.

I was at the site business and I actually live partway between this site and Onga.

I have done so for 25 years.

What I think is really important is this is not about NIMBYism.

This is about particular policies that we can actually refuse this on.

What hasn't been said is something to do with the wildlife.

And in 1045, the first deer park in Britain was actually just north of this site.

And if you look, we can't really see on there, but just north of this site, by the moat house,

there is ancient woodlands that link right the way through to Epping Forest.

And one of the slides that the case officer put up was an aerial view,

showed just how vast that land is.

This is such a huge area, our deer and its fallow deer in particular.

Are they going to divert round there?

They can jump easily over the fence, but they can't get out because they need to run

to get to to make that leap. So that is a danger as well, but not just that.

I understand that the way that the fencing has been looked at has not made account of

the other wildlife, the foxes, the hares, the badgers, which all live there.

The other thing is it will be seen regardless of whether you screen it at the edges because it is

higher land and it has such far -reaching views.

I wanted to just go through and I agree entirely about the food security and the statistics

that Councillor Amos said. I had also read from DEFRA in 2024 and in the 1980s we produced

80 % of our food. So that is something to bear in mind. My background is science, including

environmental science, and as a scientist I like to have

evidence, but I do honestly think that we have got several

policies that this can be refused on.

On DM1, habitat protection, there's no corridors there for

biodiversity.

On DM2, the Epping Forest Special FSAC, there's adverse

effect on its integrity.

we know that the pollution from ammonia and nitrous oxides

with even one car within 200 metres can cause a problem,

and that doesn't seem to have been addressed.

DM3, Landscape Character, Ancient Landscapes and Geodiversity.

The landscape character in the local plan review of landscape

showed that this was actually medium, depending on where,

was medium to high sensitivity to change.

And that's not surprising.

And then you go on to Greenbelt.

Well, the key thing about protecting the Greenbelt

on MPPF 142 is that it's preventing urban sprawl

by keeping permanently open the essential characteristics

of Greenbelt are their openness and their permanence.

Yes, there are five purposes and one of them is unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas.

If you look at the Metropolitan Greenbelt, which I understand was actually first started

in 1938, and where it extends to, if that hadn't been in existence, the built -up areas

of Loughton and outskirts of Chigawal were reached to Bishopstortford and beyond.

Thank goodness we have the Metropolitan Greenbelt. Galloway Farms, I understand, just after all,

is still having milk production to go to the markets in London. Of course, growing food

near your market cuts down the carbon footprint. But also if we look at the land classification,

and this is where I wanted to query the case officer who in his report this evening said

that the land there was uneconomically viable because of poor productivity. And yet over

50 % is grade 2, is one of the best and most versatile, or grade 2 or 3a. Now the only

reason that it is not any higher is because it is heavy clay soils that can't actually

grow root vegetables. But the crops they grow traditionally in those particular fields are

wheat and barley and winter wheat, summer wheat, winter wheat and barley. They also

do oil seed rape for oil. But poor productivity, I don't believe it. And I feel very sad for

the farmers because I think that various policies more recently, they always used to have subsidies

to grow our food. They haven't at the moment and I think that's absolutely disgusting

personally, but because of that we shouldn't be actually changing our

landscapes and as Councillor Jones said there are a lot of reports about the

queries about what contamination there is likely to be from leaching if

you like of constant rainfall on the solar panels, on the chemicals into

the soil, that can calm earthworms and other living creatures and

organisms to make it contaminated land.

And even the piles, which are steel,

will eventually rust if they're not treated very well

or particularly good.

And that will make the soil acidic.

Again, if it's too acidic, you can't grow the crops.

So there's a lot wrong with it in this particular place.

The DM5 with the green infrastructure,

There's no way of connectivity for habitats, there's no green corridors.

DM7, historical environment.

We've got an ancient monument which hasn't been mentioned,

and that is at the top corner of the proposed layout,

the top left -hand corner,

where you've got a series of listed buildings,

but also the moat house.

and the moat is, that is grade one I understand, or grade two star or something, but it's a very beautiful listed building,

but the moat is an ancient monument.

Now I understand that because of that, Historic England should have been informed about the harm to the setting.

Now harm to settings of heritage properties is not a defined area,

It is to do with the, and it is misunderstood, but it is to do with how it was in its original state,

the importance of that particular setting.

And as I understand it, the moat was actually used also for the cows to come and drink from the nearby fields.

So again, it showed the openness of that.

Another thing that's important about around there is it is believed to have Roman remains.

The whole area has been largely unexcavated.

Even the piles and some of the areas where they want to do the batteries,

we don't know what we're destroying there.

If there's Roman remains, we don't know if there was a villa there, the suggestions.

It may or may not be.

But that again is really important.

So I would also, I haven't heard anything this evening and I haven't seen anything.

A lot of correspondence has come to me to make me change my mind.

I've done a lot of research to look at statistics and I would say that the land take situation of solar farms,

the solar farm land take, and I know the developers talked about this, all of the UK, 0 .44%.

But England is not 0 .75%.

And if you take, for example, Lincolnshire, it hosts 13 .3 % of all the UK's ground -mounted

solar capacity.

So it's not distributed evenly.

And we should not be putting solar farms on our highest and most versatile land.

and I was one correction I wanted to come back on

and I can't remember what it was.

Thank you, Councillor De Vincenzo.

But if I may come back later on that, thank you.

Councillor Whitbread.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:22:22

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Holly Whitbread - 1:22:25

And I'm afraid much of what I'm gonna say

has already been said,

so I'll try not to repeat too many of the points,

but I think some of them are important to emphasise.

I'm really concerned by this recommendation

And to be honest, I was completely baffled

when I originally read the papers.

I think Councillor Jones spoke very articulately

as did Councillor Dadd setting out really strong

planning reasons why we can object this evening.

And while we are technically considering the application

on its own, this does have wider implications

and could very much have a dangerous precedent.

I think we've got nine similar applications

kind of in motion at the moment.

and that is something that concerns me.

So without doubt, this is a green belt site.

There is no argument.

You cannot see this as a grey belt site.

And this application would transform this Grade 1 green

belt site.

It's not allocated in the local plan,

and it's not allocated in the local plan

for very, very good reasons.

The local plan exists to set out sites for development.

It also exists to protect our green belt, which

is so vital to the character of our local area.

And as has already been mentioned,

this is grade two and grade three

arable agricultural land.

And Councillor Amos spoke very well

about the importance of food security,

particularly in light of the geopolitical situation

at the moment.

But it is vital.

We talk about benefits to the environment,

but protecting our food production

is key, as is protecting our wildlife too.

And actually, so often we see applications come forward

with potential damage to wildlife,

and that's so much at the centre of objections.

National planning policy does talk

about the benefits of solar farms and renewable energy,

but it also talks about the importance of Greenbelt.

And whilst this greybelt definition is pretty untested,

and obviously the MPPF as amended only went through at the end of last year, it is very

clear that we need to, within that, that there is an importance to the intrinsic character

and beauty of the countryside and the wide benefits from the natural capital and ecosystem

services and I think this very much relates to this specific site which is not only agricultural

but beautiful, a separation site as well in terms of that green belt value.

We've also, and as I said, I'll try not to repeat many of the excellent points already

made by the speakers and councillors this evening, but there is a significant impact

on listed buildings and heritage assets.

I am very deeply concerned by this idea of temporary.

Forty years is not temporary.

In 40 years' time, I'm trying to do the maths, I'll be 70 years.

I'm 72 years old, so you know, this is not a temporary site.

And actually the damage to this site is irreparable.

And that really, really concerns me.

And as has been said, renewable energy is very important,

but there are far better locations than this.

The new sports centre in Epping being a prime example actually

of where there is solar panels on the roof of a building,

and that's where we should be looking to put solar panels.

and not using these excellent greenbelt sites.

So there has been very high levels of objection,

and very strong objections from parish and town councils.

And it's unusual for them to come together in such a way

as well.

So I try not to repeat the points,

but I strongly support those objections,

very sceptical of the letters of support,

the handful of letters of support.

So to conclude, I think we should be doing everything

we can stand firm against this application this evening,

primarily due to the damage to the green belt

and also upholding our local plan,

which we should be championing from a planning perspective

to protect the green belt

and protect the future character of our district.

Thank you.

Mr. Ralman, is there any comments you want to make?

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:26:40

Just on a few points.

Muhammad Rahman - 1:26:44

Regarding ecology,

The equality team have considered the application.

They are satisfied with the submitted reports.

Further details are to be fleshed out by the conditions, including the corridors enhancements

and so forth.

The second point around the scheduled monument, Historic England were consulted.

They commented stating they are not going to provide any comments on the application

and it was by an inspector of ancient monuments

and they deferred it to the conservation team.

And while food security is important,

so is energy security and hence the push

by central government to have by 2030,

at least 95 % of the energy generated in the country,

in Great Britain from renewable sources,

hence the recent surge in solar farms and other projects across the country.

Thank you. Councillor Williamson.

Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:27:54

Thank you, Chair. It is a very emotional debate. First of all, on the letters of support and

objections, I think the members of this committee are savvy enough to understand what that means.

I mean, we've had petitions of 4 ,000.

I think I said in full council once,

I'd take it all seriously and go and visit them all,

which meant going to Hawaii, Brisbane, Peru, and the rest.

So I think we're savvy enough to understand

that the level of support and the level of objections,

but that the numbers are not necessarily material.

Yeah, we do have a balance to take as a committee

between food security and energy security.

There's no two ways about it, they're both important.

Back on the temporary, I despair of going home

and saying to my wife of 47 years

that this is a temporary arrangement.

But she might not take that very well.

The heritage reports, yeah, as we heard

on the previous application, any change anywhere near anything,

do with heritage or any change in any way to a neighbour building an extension.

There is some harm and it is up to this committee to balance that harm against the application.

This is a head and heart decision, I think, very much.

The head says we need to secure our energy supplies.

Our heart standing in the middle of that field

and driving down those roads and looking around

says this must be mad.

This is a really difficult balance.

Some people have mentioned to me

that we only make decisions to avoid appeals and costs.

That's not the case.

As Councillor Jones quite rightly said,

if we come up with the right decisions,

if we're not going to accept this,

if we do go for refusal,

So if we come up with the right reasons for refusal,

then maybe the Planning Inspector will overturn it,

but he has no grounds to then award costs.

It's a very difficult decision for me.

When we take the emotion and say standing

in the middle of that field on Monday, it seems madness.

But then again, this is the world we're living in

at the moment, this is the sort of decision we have to make.

So if somebody can come up with sound reasons for refusal,

I would certainly consider that approach.

At the moment, I'm still undecided.

Thank you, and Councillor George.

Cllr Mandy George - 1:30:49

Hi, good evening, everyone.

Thank you for Malcolm, Steve and Andrew

for coming to speak.

It's great to hear what you said.

And also our fellow colleagues,

with what you have had to say.

Most people said what I wanted to ask,

but one thing that does concern me,

and there's quite a number of things that do concern me,

but it's been answered with their hedges,

Cllr Mandy George - 1:31:12

that 10 to 20 years for them to mature,

that's quite a length of time to see that soreness

on quite a large amount of area.

What has come to the committee and Councillor

that has highlighted is the impacts on the wildlife.

Have you taken a survey on the impacts of the creatures,

even down to the insects and how they will be affected

over this period of time?

And as Councillor Dadd said too, about the deer

and how they'll be affected and what adverse effects

will that have on that, not only with the locals

and not only with local businesses too,

But even the term a solar farm, now to me, I think that's a bit misleading.

So to me and everyone else, if you use the term farm, I'm a teacher.

And I've worked with early years all the way up now to key stage three and four.

But even with the little ones, you say a farm, it conjures up in their mind animals, vegetables, wheat.

But this isn't. This is industry.

where who's going to benefit?

Now, is the company that's got the solar panels benefit?

The farmer going to benefit for leasing it?

I know darn well that even with my electricity bill going up,

am I going to benefit on the increase in the solar panels

being there?

Are you going to benefit?

I can't see it somehow.

So the negative impact on using the green belt,

which we must preserve, we must keep safe,

and not for renewable energy.

And as others have said, there is another farm nearby with lots

of solar panels on it.

So what do we weigh up?

Do we weigh up the financial benefit?

I read and I've also been doing my own research on solar farms.

I thought, okay, let's have a look a bit more.

And I can see benefits to climate change and

to stability.

But then on the other hand, it's the disruption to the local

community, it's the disruption to the landscape, it's disruption to the green belt which we

have to preserve.

I would like to go back to what surveys have been conducted on our wildlife.

Because we're humans, we're at the top of the food chain, it doesn't mean to say that

we dismiss anything else below us because they still have a right to roam freely, they

still have a right to make it their home.

So how are they going to be displaced?

Thank you.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:33:47

So, can you answer my question, please?

Is there any survey that has been conducted?

So the ecology impact assessment was submitted and assessed by the Council's ecology team.

Muhammad Rahman - 1:34:04

It's an ecology assessment published under the case file.

It's published on the case file.

It's a full document.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:34:22

You need to go to the main website where all the documents are listed.

And that's sort of a standard way of dealing with that sort of thing.

And that indicates and shows clearly the impacts on the wildlife there.

That's correct.

and the consortee comments are also available.

It sets out a number of recommendations to flesh out

some of the details should constantly be granted.

Right, okay, thank you.

Councillor Derr, do you want to come back?

Yes, thank you.

I can remember the things I will come back on,

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:34:56

but I want to just answer the last one

about other creatures other than deer and foxes and things,

and their hairs.

The Essex Wildlife Trust replied on the 14th of October and gave a very good report and

they object. They have a holding objection and the insufficient ecological information

including not addressing the fencing design, no soil management over the time, turtle dove

conservation features, skylark mitigation strategy, the BNG, yes, but the justification

of the baseline needs looking at again, the habitat management and monitoring, the protection

of species such as bats, of several species, bats there is inadequate evidence, greater

crested newts, the proximity of the ponds are within 250 metres and therefore there

likely to be a presence during construction. The government says it's within 500 metres

and it doesn't look as though this has been registered as a possible problem and how to

deal with it. And to be established before any permissions, reptiles, that was only a

desk exercise. And we do know that in, well certainly near me, we've got slow worms and

grass snakes which are protected.

And there has not been, as far as I could see,

a minimum survey with guidance leading on to that.

And then there's the situation with the FSAC.

But going back to the thing that I meant to mention,

which was it's quite clear that if you have more than 20

hectares, either individually or cumulatively, of more than 20 hectares of best, most versatile

land, that's grades 1, 2 and 3A, that you must consult Natural England for development

proposals. And that's not the, I've read through all the consultation responses from Natural

England, it is more general about air pollution and FSAC.

Nothing to do with the current effect of the loss of this land.

And that is a failing on some of the things.

There were huge numbers of documents, and each document

was huge, including one of the ones that the developer

produced for us, which was about 140 pages.

And that was only a desk exercise.

That was on ecology.

and they also did historical settings.

But that was only a desk exercise.

Now, going back, I wasn't quite clear about some places.

The developers seemed to think it was Graybelt.

I wasn't quite sure what the stance of the case officer is.

But what I want to remind councillors

is that you may recall we had a training session last year

about Graybelt. And I can see the portfolio

holder is nodding. That was after the latest government guidelines, the planning policy

guidance had been submitted and it was actually run by a team leader and our director. My

understanding, and I'm sure that Councillor Castle will correct me if I'm wrong, was that

They really felt that they were unsure of how to classify grey belt and would find it

very difficult.

But of course now, at the moment, it's all classes of green belt.

But we've already given, commissioned Arup to do a study and come up with what they think

is grey belt.

So I think it would be most inappropriate at this time to actually suggest something

is grey belt.

Going back to the officer's report, he said that the West Essex one, which this committee

refused, he said that the inspector said yes, it was Greybelt.

I read the appeal again and it quite clearly said that in the appeal EFDC was silent.

The developer claimed it was Greybelt and EFDC was silent.

And what he said was, I was not presented with any information to contradict the developer.

That is not saying he agrees it is Greybelt.

And I feel very strongly that we have to be very careful about Greybelt because otherwise

whole swathes of the metropolitan Greenbelt, which had been so important, were actually

I mean, the Greenbelt review in 2015 had the most important and strongest thing for this

particular piece of land was harm to the encroachment.

Not the other ones, which this government is saying A, C and D, but the encroachment.

So I think we should be very wary until we have got Arup's report and consultation in

less experienced, less qualified officers within EFDC claiming that it is Greybelt.

I'm sorry about that, but that's what I feel.

Thank you.

OK, we've debated this.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:40:33

Yes.

Apologies, Chairman, if you wouldn't mind me just interjecting.

Cllr Sue Jones - 1:40:40

Councillor Tom Bumridge has actually just joined the meeting on Teams.

He was on the original list to speak.

I wonder if you would be prepared to let him speak.

We have moved on from the original speakers, but since he's taken the trouble to join us,

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:40:58

then we shall allow him to speak.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm just going to read off some of my remarks

because I think there are so many things

that I just really do not like about this application.

So I'm not a council for this ward,

but as far as I'm aware, I'm speaking tonight

as a representative of district ICs being under siege.

So since May, 2024, Epping Forest has been hit

by 11 separate solar applications.

To put that in perspective,

of our neighbours in Upholstow to see just six,

Braintree and Malden just two each

and Chelmsford has seen only one.

We have to ask ourselves,

why is Epping Forest being singled out?

This isn't just a matter of unfairness,

it's a planning issue of cumulative impact.

And if we continue to be the path of least resistance

for developers, offering up the most stunning parts

of our countryside for solar development,

we have effectively invited big fat for sale site

to be placed over our entire countryside.

Now we're a district renowned for natural beauty and agriculture.

We're not a dumping ground for speculative industrial projects that our neighbours are successfully resisting and avoiding.

I was alarmed by the recent proceedings last year on planning committee A related to nickel and solar farm.

I saw a worrying lack of scrutiny where the debate seemed preemptively surrendered to the fear of a planning inspector at appeal.

We've heard colleagues say they detest these projects yet felt compelled to vote for them.

Now if we're still here tonight believing that the government has already dictated our decision,

or that the voices of the few will always be trumped by legal threats,

then what is the point of this committee voting on this?

If we allow the fear of legal challenges to dictate our vote,

we are no longer a power of the vote, we are a proper stanch.

Bless God.

Our duty is to the residents of Epping Forest and the protection of our green guard.

We must vote on the merits of this application, not out of the fear of a de -valpist legal budget.

Now on their website, and forgive me if I'm going over

arguments that have already been said, but chair, I really

appreciate you letting me join late.

On their website, the developer argues that climate change is

the greatest threat to food security, but the immediate

40 -year removal of very good agricultural land is a far more

tangible threat to our national resilience.

There is also a rightfully inefficient use of land.

It takes 112 football pitches of solar panels to generate the

same annual electricity as one single offshore wind turbine.

Furthermore, while the developer calls the 40 -year lease temporary, that represents almost

the entire working life of a farmer.

Once we industrialise this best and most versatile land, the soil compaction and potential chemical

leaking make the claim of reversibility scientifically suspect.

We're also not looking at a small development here.

This is a solar farm coupled with the Nickleham Solar Farm that covers almost 12 % of the parish

of State of the Tawny.

To put that in a UK perspective, that's like us putting solar panels over the entirety

of the Scottish Highlands.

I think this is completely disrespectful and nonsensical.

And then finally, we must look at the national grid.

East Anglia is already moving towards a massive energy surplus from offshore wind.

Reliable energy that peaks in the winter when demand is highest.

Solar peaks in the summer when demand is at its lowest.

Now because thrift solar connects to a low voltage local network rather than a strategic national grid,

it does not improve national energy security.

It merely serves as a commercial interest seeking a cheap grid connexion.

Especially with the Norwich to Tilbury pylons already being built to reduce surplus coastal wind power,

adding local solar to this specific area creates grid congestion, not grid security.

Under the MPPF, the developer must prove a need that outweighs the harm.

If the energy produced is out of sync with national demand, there is no strategic necessity to industrialise 80 hectares of prime Essex countryside.

Plastering this area with glass and steel is, in my opinion, a betrayal of our stewardship of the Greenbelt.

It's not in the public interest, it's not in the local plan, and it's not a strategic necessity.

and I urge the committee to show the wisdom that Efim Horace residents expect and refuse

this application while considering more efficient and less intrusive means of generating power

for our district and region. Thank you very much once again, Chair.

Thank you very much. Okay, Councillor Morris, you wanted to speak.

Cllr Martin Morris - 1:45:24

Thanks. Okay, thanks. Yeah, okay. So I've got just a couple of, I'll try and keep this

So we're balancing off energy security and food security.

The recent, our most recent experience is that energy

security is particularly critical to the UK.

So we must take that into account when we're looking

at these kinds of applications.

I do just want to cheque on one thing,

which is the connexion to the grid will be done under

permitted development rights.

If that's not correct, you can let me know.

Because there was a point raised earlier about the fact

this whole thing doesn't have any connexion to the grid

included in the plan.

Yeah.

Male Speaker The cable elements are covered under

permitted development and taken up with the statutory

undertakers.

Male Speaker Okay.

So there's no, okay.

So I don't really believe in grey belt classification.

And I think the applicant sort of recognises that by saying

that well if it isn't grey belt then there will be sufficient

public benefit to justify building on the green belt.

Okay, so that's a judgement.

The one point that where we do have a specific objection is

from conservation.

So the conservation groups have objected to this on the basis of

harm to designated heritage assets.

And they don't say in that report that it's less than

substantial harm.

They say it is harm.

So I think it's interesting to see that we are not taking that

fully into account, or it doesn't seem to me that we're

taking that fully into account, because one of our group of

experts has said quite clearly that they believe it is harm to

designated heritage assets.

And I'm not very clear why we are not taking that into

Kent, especially given there is also a third -party report saying,

well, yes, they agree and there is substantial harm.

So I guess that's the second point.

And, sorry, the third point, there is a condition about

archaeology in there, isn't there,

about making sure that they do an archeological survey first.

Yeah, okay.

So I think that's just my final question is down to objection

of the conservation team.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:47:44

Muhammad Rahman - 1:47:47

Just to clarify, in terms of heritage harm, there's an agreement that harm is less than

substantial. There are only two harms, either substantial or less than substantial. The

case here is less than substantial and the test, as referred to earlier, are do the public

benefits outweigh this heritage harm. So that's what members will have to consider, do the

public benefits outweigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets.

I think we've debated this.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:48:16

You wanted to talk, Councillor Goughman?

If I can, Chair.

You can, Chair.

Thank you kindly.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:48:24

I don't want to get personal, but I can't help but think this report, I couldn't disagree with it more if you tried.

We have heard fantastic testimony from my colleagues, from the speakers.

One of the speakers I might not necessarily agree with.

We have gone backwards and forwards with other sites in other committees about whether they

are Greenbelt, whether they are Graybelt.

We had a site recently which I think was Greenbelt on the edge of the town.

Sorry, I thought it was Graybelt on the edge of the town.

It was unequivocally told to me it was Greenbelt.

If that site on the edge of the town, and I think a few of my colleagues know which

one it was about, there is no way on God's green earth this is a greyfield site.

This is a green belt field.

I've known it man and boy.

My children have known it boy and slightly older boy.

I cannot sit here and say that it's right to say that for the entirety of their lifetimes

they will know this is an industrial development effectively.

This was housing, we would have been finished with our discussion half an hour ago, 40 minutes

ago.

It wouldn't be a residential scheme.

It shouldn't be solar panels.

I just think it's so wrong that the officer, and I'm sorry to get personal, is riding roughshod

over so many different views that I think we all collectively agree with.

We know this, we're all local people and I think we can all agree that the national policy is just,

there are places to put things and this is not it.

And I just hope that we can take a bit of comfort from the West Essex appeal, which was, we were told we would fail,

we'd have costs against us, a whole host of things from the officer that said that we were doing the wrong thing.

But we did the right thing and the planning inspector agreed with us, he found in favour

with us and he quashed the costs appeal.

So I think we have to be bold, we have to stand for the local authority, we've got a

few years left before we have LGR and where that takes us who can say.

But when we do have the reorganisation and some of us won't be here, some of us will

be here.

I think we could all take some hope in saying that we've done the right thing for our residents

and I think they look to us to make the right decision and I just hope that

people will agree with me there are better places to put this and we should

be confident in reasons for refusal it's green belt it's inappropriate development

in the green belt and I think we can hang on that pretty pretty firmly thank

Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:51:13

you. Councillor Williams. Thank you chair I did say head and

and hearts and I think there's a lot of emotion

in this debate.

I think it's wrong to attack the officers

for doing their job.

The officers have been through,

I've read the majority of papers in the documents,

the planning officers have been through all of them.

And they have to give an unemotional recommendation.

recommendation and I believe that all of our officers do that to the best of their ability.

But then there are compelling arguments locally.

I totally get all of that, but I think it's wrong to have a personal attack on the integrity

of our officers.

Thank you very much, Councillor Williamson.

and now just sort of summing up,

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:52:10

there's obviously a large amount of feeling

against this proposal.

Just, I did the site visit

and I think it's beautiful, flowing countryside

and it is a very difficult decision.

The objectors did make some really strong arguments

but just to point out that there is a report

within the documentation from Third Revolution Project

which describes the land as lower grade arable land and that the farmers decided

that that it's not viable it's considered grade 3a or 3b and grade 2 so

there is a question mark as to how we frame if we are going to frame a

refusal. Thank you. I think, Councillor Dab, we've really got to the stage where we want

I looked up the land classification.

Okay.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:53:16

And two goes across it and three is not split with its 3A or whatever is part of it. And

that is on the government website on mapping planning. I can show you a copy if you like.

They haven't been reclassified since 1988.

I just wanted to point out that there is a report in there that says that the land is

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:53:40

considered to be less than ideal.

I think we first need to take the proposal to the vote and the proposal is to approve

with conditions subject to an S106 legal agreement.

All those in favour?

Two, Chair.

All those against?

Okay.

Seven.

So with the proposal, any abstentions?

No.

So the proposal has been refused.

So we need reasons for refusal.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:54:30

So, members, can I ask if anybody has any justifiable reasons?

Councillor Dadd.

I wrote these down while we were looking at things,

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:54:41

and also prior to that looking at things.

Well, I think the main reason is harm to the Greenbelt, which is DM4,

But there's also DM1 is habitat protection.

If you look at the section on there, there's no corridors for

biodiversity.

DM2, harm adverse effect on the integrity of the FSAC.

DM3, the landscape character, ancient landscapes, and

geodiversity.

There's not communicative, sorry, I can't read my writing

now. There is cumulative harm to the landscape because the character of the landscape is

an ancient landscape and it's got ancient woodlands as well close by. DM5, the green

infrastructure, there's no connectivity of habitats. DM7, historical environment, and

and it's harm to the settings of the listed buildings

and the ancient monument.

Those ones I actually picked out

and you can look at the words and cheque on those.

I mean, I don't know whether we have to do MPPF as well,

but if that's the case, I've got a few on there.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:56:10

Are these reasonable grounds for checking?

Muhammad Rahman - 1:56:16

I have got a few, noted a few headings. We have got number one as Greenbelt. There is

probably a case to be made on Greenbelt grounds. The second one I have noted, ecology. In officer's

view that would not be a defendable reason due to the support from the ecology team.

Details are to be fleshed out via conditions.

Moving to the third around the Epping Forest SAC, again the Council's experts have concluded there is a negligible impact from the operation of the development.

So again, not standing there, golf club, the composition was different.

For this site, a reason on FSAC grounds, it would not be defendable.

On point four around landscape character, cumulative impacts, there's probably a case

to be made.

On the fifth grounds, on heritage, I would just ask members if they can clarify, if they

consider the public benefits do not outweigh

the heritage harm, if members can just clarify.

The public benefits in terms of the energy generated,

the BNG gain, do they outweigh the heritage harm or not?

Just clarifying that statement.

Councillor Williamson.

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:57:48

Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:57:49

Chair, I go back to what I said in the debate

about refusal reasons.

I think my knowledge of previous appeals,

not just on solar farms and everything,

is if you chuck the kitchen sink at it,

the inspector will allow the appeal on one or two of them,

but not on all of them.

And this is where we're running.

This is why I said, if we've got sound reasons for refusal,

I will probably back that.

I voted for it on the basis that's before us from the officers.

If we come up with good reasons for refusal, then I'm happy to support that refusal.

Okay.

So, have we got justifiable reasons?

Muhammad Rahman - 1:58:40

In officer's view, just Greenbelt and landscape character, probably a case to be made that

other elements point would not be defensible in officer's view around ecology, FSAC and

heritage unless it's made clear that the public benefits don't outweigh that.

Councillor Jones. Thank you. Thank you for letting me come back,

Cllr Sue Jones - 1:59:08

Chairman. As far as reasons for refusal are concerned, I think we've got to look, I agree

with Councillor Williamson, we've got to be short, brief, precise. In my opinion, and

this came very clearly from the objectives, is our main reasons are food security. I think

that is a valid planning reason. The report is quite clear. The land is currently one

of the most versatile agriculture, so I think there is an element of food security. I think

the fact that our own conservation officers have said there is a heritage concern, we

should be backing them as a reason for refusal. So I think the impact on the heritage assets

of the area. I personally do believe there is a strong argument for green

belt grounds. This is rolling green land green belt. It is no way as Councillor

Kaufman said it's just not grey belt. This is green belt and our argument is

that the perceived benefits of this application in no way outweigh the

negative impact on the greenbelt.

And I wonder if the officer would consider

the legal duty to protect Epping Forest.

And I think there should be some inclusion on the reasons,

and I will stop at this one,

is the negative impact on wildlife.

Can I add to that,

Cllr Alan Lion - 2:00:50

that the proximity of the Nikkeland's development as well,

and the objective made a very good point about is this needed alongside one that is already

going or being put in place.

Muhammad Rahman - 2:01:10

So just to clarify again in my view only the green belt which would look at needs in the

adjacent site and landscape character would be the only defendable grounds. Food security

is not a policy, it doesn't have policy backing in the local plan so it wouldn't be defendable

So, heritage again, I think there needs to be clarity if the public benefits to outweigh

the harm or not for heritage to be a defendable reason because there's a test to be applied

and that test has to be carried out.

Okay, so are we happy with what we've got?

Is there a defenceable green belt and landscape?

Cllr Alan Lion - 2:01:52

Okay, everyone else is nodding.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 2:01:59

You still got an objection from the heritage people, I'm sorry, you've got to support your

heritage team.

Muhammad Rahman - 2:02:12

There's a test to be applied in considering the harm, you can't just accept the comments

without applying that test.

I will read from the policy.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 2:02:20

Heritage assets, both designated and non -designated and their settings, will be preserved or enhanced

in a manner appropriate to their significance in accordance with national planning policy

and guidance.

The more important the asset, the greater the weight that one can be given to its conservation.

Development proposals that affect any heritage asset or its setting should preserve and,

wherever possible, enhance the significance of the heritage asset having regard to the

special architectural or historic interests of its character, appearance and the contribution

made by its setting. But what I think is being confused is you are actually in favour of

it because you are doing the balance rather than looking at one specifically. But the

next point on here says that the heritage statement to be reduced using appropriate

expertise will be required for any application that may affect the significance of any heritage

asset, both blah, de -blah, de -blah. It says here, where there is evidence demonstrating

the neglect of or damage to a heritage asset, any ... Oh, that's not relevant. It says,

when considering the impact of the proposed development, the significance of designated

heritage assets, the council will give great weight to the assets conservation. Any harm

or loss will require clear and convincing justification.

Councillor Dabbs, thank you.

Just looking at the MPPF, we've got a statement here,

Cllr Alan Lion - 2:03:47

and this is, I'll read it.

Where a development proposal would lead

to less than a substantial harm

to the significance of the designated heritage asset,

this harm should be weighed against the public benefits

of the proposal, including where appropriate,

securing its optimum viable use so counts the Williams thank you chair can

Cllr Ken Williamson - 2:04:14

I put forward a motion to refuse this application on green building

landscaping matters okay I need a seconder I believe is that we've got to

counsel the church is second in that okay so we we need to vote on that so

So can you read that again?

Cllr Alan Lion - 2:04:30

It's a motion to refuse the application

on landscape and greenbelt issues.

Okay.

Are you happy with that?

I think it's okay.

Yep.

Okay, so we have a motion before us

to refuse the application on landscape and greenbelt.

All those in favour of that motion?

Cllr Alan Lion - 2:05:02

I think we can conclude the meeting now.

There are a few more items on the agenda.

9 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Cllr Clive Amos

District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Amanda Apcar

Principal Planning Solicitor

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Cllr Mary Dadd

District councillor for Ongar ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Mandy George

District councillor for Epping West and Rural ward

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Sue Jones

District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Will Kauffman

District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward

Loughton Residents Association

View profile

Cllr Paul Keska

District councillor for Ongar ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Alan Lion

District councillor for Grange Hill ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Lisa Morgan

District councillor for Grange Hill ward

Independent

View profile

Cllr Martin Morris

District councillor for Waltham Abbey North ward

Labour Party

View profile

Muhammad Rahman

Senior Planning Officer

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Serena Shani

Democratic Services Officer

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Public Speaker

View profile

Cllr Holly Whitbread

District councillor for Epping West and Rural ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Ken Williamson

District councillor for Buckhurst Hill West ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Planning Committee B - Wednesday 21 January 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee BWednesday, 21st January 2026 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

1 WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:00:06

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Serena Shani - 0:03:08

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:03:17

Serena Shani - 0:03:20

4 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:03:49

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:04:53

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:06:12

Cllr Holly Whitbread - 0:06:17

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:06:29

6 MINUTES

7 EPF/2176/24 - 16 and 18 Castle Street, Ongar, CM5 9JS

Muhammad Rahman - 0:12:18

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:12:21

Public Speaker - 0:12:35

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:15:35

Public Speaker - 0:15:49

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:17:54

Public Speaker - 0:18:04

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:20:05

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:20:37

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:29:06

Muhammad Rahman - 0:29:17

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:29:36

Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:29:46

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:31:52

Cllr Martin Morris - 0:31:56

Amanda Apcar - 0:32:07

Cllr Martin Morris - 0:32:08

Muhammad Rahman - 0:32:19

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:33:07

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:33:13

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:35:27

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:35:30

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:36:18

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:36:32

Muhammad Rahman - 0:36:50

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:37:03

Muhammad Rahman - 0:37:08

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:37:23

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:37:53

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:38:51

8 EPF/1216/25 - Land East of Tawney Common, Theydon Mount, Epping, Essex, CM16 7PU

Muhammad Rahman - 0:40:45

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:41:31

Muhammad Rahman - 0:42:07

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:48:57

Public Speaker - 0:49:11

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:52:32

Public Speaker - 0:53:11

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:56:25

Public Speaker - 0:56:35

Cllr Alan Lion - 0:59:50

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:00:07

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:00:26

Cllr Sue Jones - 1:00:28

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:00:37

Cllr Paul Keska - 1:01:01

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:01:18

Cllr Sue Jones - 1:01:20

Cllr Clive Amos - 1:10:27

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:12:32

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:12:47

Cllr Alan Lion - 1:22:22

Planning Committee B
Wednesday, 21st January 2026 at 7:00pm