Planning Committee A - Wednesday 4 February 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee A
Wednesday, 4th February 2026 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Richard Bassett
  2. Vivienne Messenger
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Steven Heather
  2. Vivienne Messenger
  3. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tom Bromwich
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Paul Keska
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Sukhi Dhadwar
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Steven Heather
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Steven Heather
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Steven Heather
  9. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  10. Cllr Steven Heather
  11. Cllr Richard Bassett
  12. Cllr Barbara Cohen
  13. Cllr Steven Heather
  14. Cllr Alan Lion
  15. Cllr Steven Heather
  16. Cllr Razia Sharif
  17. Sukhi Dhadwar
  18. Cllr Razia Sharif
  19. Sukhi Dhadwar
  20. Cllr Steven Heather
  21. Cllr Richard Bassett
  22. Sukhi Dhadwar
  23. Cllr Richard Bassett
  24. Sukhi Dhadwar
  25. Cllr Steven Heather
  26. Sukhi Dhadwar
  27. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
  1. Sukhi Dhadwar
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Steven Heather
  5. Sukhi Dhadwar
  6. Cllr Steven Heather
  7. Cllr Clive Amos
  8. Cllr Steven Heather
  9. Cllr Richard Bassett
  10. Sukhi Dhadwar
  11. Cllr Richard Bassett
  12. Sukhi Dhadwar
  13. Cllr Steven Heather
  14. Cllr Razia Sharif
  15. Sukhi Dhadwar
  16. Cllr Razia Sharif
  17. Cllr Steven Heather
  18. Cllr Alan Lion
  19. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  20. Sukhi Dhadwar
  21. Cllr Steven Heather
  22. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

1 Webcasting Introduction

Good evening and welcome to tonight's planning committee on Wednesday 4 February 2026. Before
we begin, 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 MS teams do not wish to have their image
captured, they should ensure that their video is sent throughout, the meeting is turned
off and sent to audio only. Members and public speakers are reminded to turn on their microphones
before speaking and turn them off when they have finished. Thank you.
Good evening, my name is Councillor Stephen Hedder, I'm tonight's chairman. To my left
is Suki Dadwar from the planning department. To my right is my Vice Chairman, Councillor
Alan Lyon. To his right from Democratic Services is Vivian Messenger. And to the far right
is Matt Pickin, who is dealing with the webcasting. Public speakers, you should have been briefed

2 ADVICE TO PUBLIC AND SPEAKERS ATTENDING THE COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

by Democratic Services prior. I will just remind you that you have three minutes to
state your case. Again, turn your microphone on before you start and turn it off when you
finished. Also remember remind board members that you're not allowed to
determine applications in your own wards so if it comes up please cross the

3 Apologies for absence

chamber. Apologies for absence. I've received apologies from Councillor Will
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:01:46
Apologies for Councillor Collins. He is away on holiday at the moment.
Substitute members?
Vivienne Messenger - 0:01:56
What did you say?

4 Substitute Members

Councillor Matthews.
Tim Matthews, sorry.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:02:06
I was thinking, who is that?
The big fella.
I forgot to introduce our legal representative who is joining us on teams this evening, Nicola
Sayers.
Sorry, substitute members.
Vivienne Messenger - 0:02:25
I have got Councillor Whiskin substituting for Will Kaufman.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:02:31
Declarations of interest, members.
Councillor Bromwich.

5 Declarations of interest

Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Tom Bromwich - 0:02:38
just a non -pecuniary interest in item 7.
That used to be a property associated with the school,
I think a boarding facility for the school I attended,
but I'll be voting on it
because I don't think it will make any material impact
to my vote.
Will change.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:02:54
Any further decorations?

6 Minutes

Can I take the minutes of the last committee meeting
held on the 10th of December as a tree record?
Agreed.
Thank you.

7 EPF/1495/25 - 72 Grange Court, High Road, Chigwell IG7 6PT

Right. Item 7, Grange Court. I have decided to defer this application as there will be
a visit taking place by Historic England on the 27th of this month and I think it is only
fair and proper that we await their inspection of the property and their report back before
we make an informed decision.
We need a Green Act committee.
Sorry?
We need to vote on it.
No we don't.
Oh we don't.
Thank you. And also item 10.

10 EPF/2035/25 - Corner Garth, Nursery Road, Loughton IG10 4EF

7 EPF/1495/25 - 72 Grange Court, High Road, Chigwell IG7 6PT

Thank you, Chairman. Just to say, in the paperwork connected to that item on page 7, it says
Cllr Paul Keska - 0:03:49
that it was called in by myself. That is not totally correct in that I can't call things
in, as I'm not a member of the committee and my position as portfolio holder, meant that
what did happen was that I had discussions with the then Director of Development, Nigel
Richardson, and between us we thought that a Grade 2 star listed building should come
to a committee to have decisions. But it was not called in. I will also make the point
that I have a connexion with this building
in that from the age of eight,
I too boarded at this place
when it was the junior department of Chingwell School.
It was pretty rundown even then
and the mice used to run across our beds at night.
So yeah, I have a sort of a connexion with it,
but no interest.
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:04:46
Yep, so as I say, that item has been deferred.

10 EPF/2035/25 - Corner Garth, Nursery Road, Loughton IG10 4EF

And also item 10, corner Garth nursery road.
page 5462 was included in error as it is a householder application. Article 10 of the
Constitution requires that such applications are to be determined under
the delegated authority irrespective of the number of objections received. So we

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

won't be hearing that. So moving on we have agenda item 8 which is EPF stroke
03 2 3 stroke 2 5 the lodge golding's hill louton ig10 to rj uh no sorry to our y on pages
23 to 42 and suki will be taking us through this thank you thank you chairman
good evening members this application relates to the lodge on golding's hill
sorry i just changed my cursor
yeah
and seeks permission for a rear extension to the existing dwelling and the construction
of two new detached houses fronting Goldin Road.
The application was first reported to members of the Plans B Committee on 19 November where
it was deferred to allow confirmation from the tree officer that the proposal would not
adversely affect the health and stability of the protective oak tree at Oak Tree Cottage
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:06:17
to Golding Hill identified on the plans by the pink circle and there's also a pine tree
which members sought to protect, ensure was protected.
Councillor Kaufman requested that once the tree officers comments were received, the
application should be returned to plans B rather than plans A to avoid duplication of
effort.
However, this has not been possible because the tree officer's comments were received
after the reporting deadline for the January plans B committee.
The applicant has also asked that a decision be made as soon as practicable.
The tree officer has now reviewed the plans and the submitted tree report and raises no
objection to the scheme.
Members can see the application site outlined in red and is located at the
corner of Goldin's Hill at the junction with Goldin's Road. It is clearly visible
from public views. The lodge is locally listed which means it's a non -designated
heritage asset. This slide shows the street views of the site. The building is
identified on the EFDC local list as a late 19th century red brick cottage. The top view
is of 87 Goldings Road and the rear garden of the application site. The top right view
is of the masonettes at 92 to 98 Goldings Road. The bottom view is of the application
dwelling side elevation. The proposal includes a three metre deep full width single storey
extension which falls within the permitted development limits of the property. Two detached
houses are also proposed to be created through the subdivision of the rear garden. All the
requirements of policy DM10.
The existing and proposed dwellings retain usable and appropriately sized gardens, making
efficient use of urban land.
The new plots maintain a 9 to 11 metre separation distance from Oakview Cottage, with mature
vegetation providing effective screening.
Privacy and amenity are safeguarded through design measures including obscured non -openable
flank windows and the removal of permitted development rights.
The scheme therefore is considered to meet the requirements of policy DM9.
The design respects the surrounding scale and character.
Parking standards are met.
EB charging will be provided and the highway authority raises no objections, ensuring compliance
with policy T1 and the MPPF.
Officers therefore do not consider that the proposal is over development.
The scheme includes new native planting and a tree hedge improvements to biodiversity
net gain whilst also retaining existing hedge rows important to the lodges setting.
The arboreal cultural impact assessment identifies protection measures for the veteran oak tree
and the large pine tree with the layout designed to avoid the root protection areas as far as possible.
The report confirms the development can proceed without harming these trees.
The council's tree officer raises no objection subject to standard tree protection conditions
and adherence to the arboricultural method statement.
Planning officers are therefore satisfied that any heritage impact will be moderate and outweighed
by the public benefits of providing two additional family homes within a sustainable location
outside of Greenbelt. The proposal is therefore comprised with both local and national policy.
Thank you, Chairman. That's the end of the presentation.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:10:25
Thank you. We have public speakers on this. The first is Anton French in person. Objector?
You have three minutes, sir.
Following the meeting on 19th November last year,
Public Speaker - 0:10:42
I've been asked again to speak on behalf of all the objectors
who are residents in both Goldings Road and ourselves.
Previously, I went into a great deal of detail regarding the great loss of privacy.
You can see Plot 1 would look straight down our back garden.
Loss of light, greater noise, the dangerous increase in traffic,
the deterioration of my wife's health, the danger to the oak tree, the creeping urbanisation of Loughton,
and the destruction of the peaceful ambience of the lodge and the surrounding vicinity.
There's also the drainage of the area, the damage to foundations, and whether there be sufficient retaining walls.
Although all are still very relevant, I don't intend to repeat myself, but will focus on the following.
The oak tree. I read the report prepared by Moore Partners Limited who are in Bradwell -on -Sea.
I take great issue with the comment, less than expected for a mature oak,
which was just as likely to cause stress to the tree. I totally disagree with this.
We have lived in our bungalow for almost 17 years and have cared for the tree.
Having a 30 % crown reduction every five years recommended by local arborists such
as bequetry, chiguul tree, acorn tree,
all who are residents in Epping Forest.
The 265 -year -old tree is very healthy,
and the roots must not be disturbed.
The lodge, which was built between 1880 to 1896,
it's a locally listed iconic landmark in Lowton.
Any changes to it and its surroundings
will greatly alter the aura of the local vicinity.
And just see an increasingly gradual urban sprawl
of the town. Traffic. Ask anyone who lives in or who regularly drives in Golding's Road
and they will tell you that the junction and the road is dangerous. At the junction there
is lower road coming up, opposite there's Furze Drive and for cars turning left from Golding's Hill
it's not an easy turn. It's a very sharp turn. There will be accidents. In fact there was one
on the night of the previous meeting.
Do you want to add any more to this danger?
So to summarise privacy, the committee's decision
would have a severe detrimental impact
and huge loss of privacy for the residents of Goldings Road
and ourselves.
The oak tree.
A committee's decision could kill the tree.
We don't want to be compensated.
We want the tree to live for another 265 years.
The Lodge, the committee's decision could change the outlook of the plot and traffic.
Again, the committee's decision could result in more accidents, injuries and neighbours' parking disputes.
In fact, I would urge you all, before you make any decision, to come and see the plot for yourselves.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:13:42
If you could take the microphone off, please.
Thank you. We have John Riley from the Loughton Town Council.
Public Speaker - 0:13:58
Again, three minutes. Thank you, committee. First of all, we have
raised concern that this has not been pushed through and come before the previous committee,
as a lot of work went into preparation for that evening and as gentlemen behind
us we strongly support all the reasons for objection that the neighbours have
raised. We don't feel that the Planning Officer has taken on board some of these
reasons. We totally object to the proposal and the fact that the Planning
officer feels that a box on the side of the lodge is compliant with DM9. We
totally disagree with that finding. We feel that it is an overdevelopment of
the plot to put two properties onto it. Again we cannot see justification for
that in the report. Tried to report but it's justified on the basis that it's an
urban area. It's not an urban area, it's on the edge of the forest. It's not subject to
urbanisation so it's a gross injustice really to the lodge that sits there and has sat there
for 100 years or so. However, if the committee is minded to approve this, yet another damning
indictment is the number of conditions that the officer has put in the report
to overcome all the objections which to me means it's not really an approved
development because they're going to have to comply with all these conditions
so we would strongly strongly request that all the conditions that have been
put forward are included in the approval if the committee is minded to approve. We
we much obviously prefer for there to be a refusal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:16:03
We now have Martin Patay, the agent.
I'll click.
Again, sir, three minutes.
Thank you, Chairman.
The proposal is for two modest dwellings
and a modest single -storey extension to the existing house.
The lodge is on the local list
and the scheme has been designed by ourselves
sensitively to reflect this. It was presented at the last meeting in November
Public Speaker - 0:16:28
and I believe the proposal was generally supported but deferred so that the
officers could confirm with your own tree officers that the oak tree would
not be harmed. The council officer has confirmed no objection whilst our own
tree specialist Moore Partners Ltd have also confirmed that it complies with the
British standard and there should be no stress or effect on the tree or its root
systems by the development. The existing driveway that's on the lodge will be
removed and turned into open garden therefore there's 37 square metres of
non of hard non porous surface being removed which will benefit the tree root
system. Whilst there have been some objections the two houses follow the
pattern of development here meeting the national floor space standards whilst
the garden spaces are very similar to those at 83 and 87 Golding's Hill. They
therefore in keeping with the general part of this general part of Loughton.
Parking meets the parking standards for two car spaces per dwelling and there
are no objections from highways. We had a separate report from EAS limited of
Essex regarding the highway aspects who confirmed Essex County Council's
response that there will be no issues from a highways perspective. Neighbours
also refer to loss of view and outlook and whilst we respect that, the loss of a
is not a planning matter. Overlooking was mentioned but this has been dealt with
by the Planning Officer and is no worse than what currently exists from other
neighbouring properties. The proposal therefore appears to satisfy all the
main planning issues. On the lodge this is not a statutory listed building and
must be recognised that this can be changed at any time under permitted
development without planning control. However the designs we propose to seek
to respect and preserve this dwelling,
particularly the two most important aspects
fronting Goldings Hill and Goldings Road.
And these are retained unchanged,
apart from a modest single -storey extension,
which could be built under permitted development
and should not there be a reason of concern.
With the deferral, we also took the opportunity
to improve the junction of the extension
of the house from before by reducing its height,
below the band course, and setting the wall
in from the flank as was requested by one of the previous councillors. We have
retained a nine metre 30 feet gap between the lodge and the new houses to
retain its detached setting, a key requirement of local planning policy
when considering locally listed buildings. It's important to add that if
this is approved planning officers will remove permitted development rights from
the lodge. This effectively prevents any future changes to it such as dormer
windows side extensions so planning consent tonight will avoid any future
works to the to the local listed building. In addition the important
elevations to Goldings Hill and Goldings Road are not affected and we are also
being retaining the important hedge along this corner and even adding to it.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:19:44
Thank you very much. Thank you. Ward councillors. Councillor Whiskin.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:19:50
I spoke against this application at the last meeting. I stand by my reasons for
objection and I'd urge the committee to object. This is a pure garden -grabbing,
it's over development and it would be detrimental to the setting of a
character building in our town of Loughton. I think people on
this committee should consider other character buildings in areas
they live in, and would they like to see those character
buildings loomed over by what looked to me to be overly large
dwellings next door to them, which would be detrimental and
ruin the setting of it.
I think there is an issue about highways.
The cars which will park on those drives will back onto that road, which is very dangerous
now.
However, should the committee be of a mind to approve it, again, the conditions must
be strictly adhered to, but also during construction it is essential that those conditions in terms
of highways maintenance keeping the the road clean are are adopted and severely
maintained and ensured they are enforced because that is something which is often
the major irritant during a construction phase thank you
thank you
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:21:18
members.
Councillor Bassa.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:21:26
Thank you. I'll have a go first.
I looked at most of the reasons why before there were
objectives. I've had lots of letters and things on this.
And I did go through the 29 conditions
and I think, yeah, 29.
And I think most of them have been put there to try and limit
the reasons why there is an objection.
I do totally understand the fact of garden inserts.
There is some rules on infill,
which they could most probably claim
is an infill development
because there's houses on each side.
I'm not particularly, like you,
I like to see plenty of room.
I live in the countryside, you know, so I do that.
But the highways issues,
unfortunately highways have not made any objection therefore we cannot take that
into consideration because they're the arbiter it's very very difficult. The tree
issue yes I'm very concerned when you've got a big old oak tree like that I see
they're putting a protection in place a ring and I'd like to see that
actually made so no one accidentally goes there. I had someone over outside
where they accidentally knocked down, I think it was 30 trees accidentally.
I was not too impressed with that one.
But it's very difficult these ones because the other thing we must consider is how would we do on appeal on this one.
They seem to have covered most areas and the officers seem to have covered just about everything you can think of in 29 conditions.
I don't particularly like it, but I can understand it doesn't break any of the rules from what
I can see.
And I'll have to think about how I vote on this when I'll listen to the other members.
Councillor Cohen.
Cllr Barbara Cohen - 0:23:32
So I think it's a real shame that we could be giving up the grounds around this lovely
house because it won't look the same with two houses next to it. Why there has
to be two houses and not one is a mystery. One would look a lot
better but if it is given permission the roots of the tree could in years in
the decades that will follow could go under the buildings of the new
houses. So if it does go through can we have a condition that there's concrete
around each route to protect it, protect the tree. There's concrete barriers
around the roots I hear. You wouldn't do that? Clay barriers okay. Can we have clay
barriers around each route but I am not happy about it at all. Thank you.
Okay. Any other members?
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:24:37
I can come in.
Thanks, Jim.
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:24:45
Just, I looked at the webcast from the previous application,
and it came down to everybody was agreed,
or the majority agreed, that the development was appropriate.
It was only the issue of our officers providing a report
on the tree and its protection that was not covered.
Now in this particular report there is a paragraph in on page 32
where the landscaping officer has raised no objections to the proposal.
The methodology included arboricultural supervision shall be undertaken
so it will be supervised in accordance with the submitted tree survey.
And the company that carried out that arboricultural survey are a reputable company
company, otherwise, you know, if we doubt them, then we doubt other companies that are
actually putting forward reports. So unless we have evidence to suggest they're not appropriate,
then I don't see any reason why we should not consider this an acceptable scheme. Thank
you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:25:55
Was there any further? Councillor Sherriff.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Razia Sharif - 0:25:59
And thank you to the speakers this evening.
I think I have to agree with Councillor Cohen
that the site would look better with one building,
extra building on there rather than two.
I do have concerns about the old Oak tree.
Not quite sure how we mitigate that.
I mean, the fact that we have 29 conditions in place
makes me quite concerned about this application.
Why 29 conditions? Is that because the planning officer isn't totally convinced by the application?
I don't know. Maybe the planning officer could let me know.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:26:44
So planning conditions need to be reasonable and will ensure that if that condition wasn't
that the application would be refused.
The conditions are relevant.
They ensure that this scheme is acceptable
and will not have an adverse impact
on all the issues that have been mentioned today,
such as the trees, the appearance
and the impact on highway safety.
So yes, there are a number of trees,
but that in itself isn't a reason for refusal.
we need to have planning grounds to justify any refusal.
Can I just come back on that?
So are you saying that the overall,
Cllr Razia Sharif - 0:27:35
do the benefits outweigh the heritage impact
on the neighbours and then impact on the trees as well,
on that particular tree?
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:27:46
Yes, they do because the way in which it's gonna be built
will ensure that those trees are protected.
The distances for neighbouring and the design features ensure that neighbouring amenity will
not be excessively affected given that it's in an urban location, which is the development
is similar to other developments within the wider area.
So, and it will provide a family home, which the government is encouraging us to do to
boost the supply of housing.
So yes, I do think that overall it complies with policy.
And when you read the plan, the local plan as a whole, it's acceptable.
Councillor Bassett.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:28:40
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:28:43
Yeah, sorry, I've just been reading through again and they've got as part on page 32,
there is a 19 metre protection area around the tree and the recommended is only 15, so
they have actually included a lot bigger area and nothing can intersect with that or go
up against it.
So that is the only thing I always worry is when building work is easy on hand is how can we make sure that
that is not encroached upon and
I did see something here
That we are going to very closely monitor it, but it would be very useful if during construction there is a
Something around the tree to stop it actually happening. I don't know if we can
and strengthen that one on page 32 just to include a protection, and it's got the protection
area but actually something that would stop anything encroaching upon it accidentally.
Thank you.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:29:52
So there is a protection area so there shouldn't be any accidental encroaching.
Yeah, but there always is.
Say it again.
There quite often is.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:30:04
So therefore, I'm saying is let's make sure by actually either putting a small picket
fence around to say you mustn't encroach this area.
Yeah, we can do that.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:30:14
We can add that to the tree protection condition.
I just find it.
So in line with the BS standards, there is usually fencing required around any tree that
needs to be protected.
So, I would imagine that that would be done in any case.
I mean, what we can do is do an inspection.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:30:49
Right, members, the officer's recommendation is to approve with conditions.
I'll be adding that as another one.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:31:03
If members are agreeable, we can add a condition to require that the tree officer visit the
development site.
All those in favour, please show.
Four chairmen.
Those against?
Three chairmen.
Abstentions?
therefore that application is approved

9 EPF/1394/25 - 32 Piercing Hill, Theydon Bois, Epping CM16 7JW

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:31:31
agenda item 9 is EPF 1 .394 .25, 32, Pearson Hill, Thayden Boys, Epping, CM 16,
on pages 43 to 53 of your agenda. Suki will be taking us through this one.
Thank you, Chairman. This item relates to 32 Pearson Hill in Faden Boys. The proposal
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:32:44
is before members tonight due to five objections being received from Faden Boys Parish Council
has withdrawn their initial objection. The proposal is for a change of use from C3 dwelling
to C2 residential children's care home for a maximum of three children between the ages
of seven and 17 years old. Two or three staff and a manager. The application site contains
a large two -storey, five -bedroom detached house within a generous plot. It's located
along Pearson Hill. The front kerchillage provides space for up to four vehicles. The
nearest neighbouring property is 31 Pearson Hill, which is south of the site, as a side
side flank which is positioned around 3 .8 metres from the side flank of the application
home. The side flank of the neighbouring property at 33 Pearson Hill to the north is 5 .3 metres
away from the side flank of the application home and is screened from the site by high
hedges. The application site has a rear garden which is 27 .5 metres deep. The rear garden
of 33 Pearson Hill adjoins the rear boundary of the application site.
This slide shows the existing and proposed floor plans.
No significant changes are proposed.
The care home would require offset approval to ensure safeguarding measures are in place
and the application detailed in documentation on noise management and community integration
will prevent disturbances to neighbouring properties.
The care home would require offset approval
to ensure safeguarding measures are in place,
and the application includes detailed documentations
regarding this.
The scale of the activity, including staff movements,
would be similar to that of an ordinary family home,
and would not cause harmful levels of traffic,
parking pressure, or disturbance.
residents. The site is a 10 -minute walk from Faden Boyes station and is near to a bus stop.
A residential use already exists on the site and care homes for up to six residents can
fall within Class C3B without requiring planning permission. Appeal decisions have confirmed
that such small -scale uses generate movement patterns consistent with residential neighbourhoods.
The visual impact would be negligible and parking demand would be comparable to a large
family home. Condition 4 on page 52 of the agenda recommends to control the number of
children so that they don't exceed 3. Overall, officers are satisfied that the use will not
harm local character or residential amenity and complies with policy DM9 as it's appropriate
to its setting and will reinforce the residential character of the area. It's therefore recommended
for approval with condition. Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:35:58
Thank you. We have a public speaker on this. Object, joining us on Teams, Barbara Houghton.
Can you hear us? Yes, good evening.
Good evening. You have three minutes. Okay, thank you. Dear Chair and Councillors,
Public Speaker - 0:36:14
I want to draw your attention to a very relevant and recent case from June last year in Durham
where a similar application was made to convert a family home into a children's home for three
vulnerable young children.
That property backed onto a nature reserve.
Durham Police, formerly objective, stating the local position posed a great risk to the
children who might go missing and would add additional pressure on the local policies
of police resourcing.
Residents there also raised concerns about the crime and antisocial behaviour.
Importantly, the planning committee made clear
that they were not assuming the children would cause trouble.
Councillor Elizabeth Pearce said,
what concerns me is the fact that the police
believe the location was not suitable
for looked after children.
That was the decisive factor
in refusing the application.
I believe the situation number 32 Pearson Hill
raises more serious concerns.
If a child left the property by the back garden,
they would have three immediate routes straight into Epping Forest, up the hill towards Epping,
or 20 minute walk to the shops and Zadenbois tube station. CCTV cameras would not pick them up for
at least 20 minutes. Number 32 sits very close to 56 square miles of dense forest and opposite
three square miles of wooded golf course. It would be extremely difficult to locate a missing child
quickly in either environment.
The walk to Epping has no pavements,
meaning a child walking on the verge
is exposed to passing vehicles
and potentially to individuals stopping to offer lifts.
There are numerous forest car parks
within the minutes of the property.
These are not hypothetical risks,
they are practical realities of the location.
Number 32 sits within a small enclave of eight family homes.
The children's home operates very differently
from a standard household.
involves rotating staff, 24 hour shift patterns,
and frequent professional visits.
Planning inspectors across the UK have consistently found
that the level of activity can materialistically alter
the character of a quiet residential street.
This is a recognised planning issue,
not an emotional objection.
Other conditions are,
Aidan Boyes has a black sky policy,
and Pearson Hill is very extremely dark at night,
making it very hard to locate missing children.
The property is not close to shops,
a 20 minute walk for children
who naturally want independence.
No regular bus service, number 18 runs every two hours,
six days a week.
Whether a full risk assessment of the house and garden
has been carried out,
insufficient labouring consultation,
number 34, two doors up, never received a notice.
Parish council suggested conditions
admit the age of the children.
Combining all the factors
and the precedent already set in Durham,
I would respectfully urge the committee
to decline this application.
It should not proceed without a full risk assessment
involving Essex Police, a proper assessment of the property,
and consultation with all residents of Pearson Hill
and the wider community.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:39:25
The town council, I believe withdrew their objection.
That's correct, Chairman.
Thank you.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:39:33
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:39:34
So ward councillors, Councillor Amos.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Clive Amos - 0:39:38
I've received a number of representations
regarding this application,
which is why I'm here this evening.
Those that I initially received
was regarding the possible change of use,
but I think that's adequately covered in the conditions
that have been applied to this proposed approval.
And of course, the planning system itself
would be there'd be change of use.
So I think that those who are concerned about that
can be reassured.
I have to say, I think it's very marginal as to whether this
is a sustainable location for this particular development.
Certainly, if I was setting up a children's home for three
people, I wouldn't put it on the very edge of the village.
I would put it much closer to the centre.
We've heard there are the near, I'll tell you,
The nearest bus stop is 200 yards away, and as we have heard, the bus goes every two hours
if you're lucky.
They quite often cancel them.
Now we see an age range suggested of 7 to 17 for the children.
Now the younger children certainly would need escorts wherever they were going.
The older children, depending on their condition, might be able to exercise a certain amount
of independence.
But as I say, the lack of transport would make it rather difficult.
And I know I'm a lot older than that, but I would be hard -pressed, I think,
to get to the station in 20 minutes from that particular location,
even when I was much younger.
There is, of course, and it's quite commendable,
welfare issues that have been raised.
But that is not actually, unfortunately, a matter for this committee.
That's for another authority to look into it to ensure that the children are safeguarded.
I understand the concerns.
I understand the problems that might occur, but as I say, it is hardly a planning matter.
But I would ask the committee to give careful consideration to this particular application.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Members.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:41:54
Councillor Basso.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:41:59
It's always me first, isn't it? Troublemaker.
No, I've read this.
I can understand exactly what they're doing and there is a need.
I don't... One of the things I'm not sure in reading this
is what... They've got a care home for these children,
but I'm not exactly sure what they're...
Is it just they need somewhere to go
or is it they have mental problems or whatever?
It's not really clear.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:42:28
So the proposal is for children with, from children that have
been separated from their parents for any number of
reasons who are either autistic or have Asperger's.
They categorically state that they don't take on any children
that have had any antisocial behaviour orders on them.
So it's just children that may have autism or Asperger's.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:42:56
Thank you for that clarification.
One of the things here is I'm not sure some of the objections,
and I can totally understand them, is are they actually planning reasons
like if someone leaves and where they could go.
I'm not sure that is something we could actually decide.
I think that is something, obviously, shall we say, the council and duty of care and all
of that, they would need to look into before they placed anyone there.
Am I correct on that?
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:43:32
Yes, so it would be, they need approval from Ofsted and Ofsted would be looking at those
matters.
Just to reiterate, there's going to be between two and three staff members as well as a manager
looking after the children at any one time.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:43:52
Councillor Shruth.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Razia Sharif - 0:43:56
Strange application. I mean, it's a straightforward change of use.
I can't see any planning objections to this
and any reason to refuse it on a planning basis.
However, I do have concerns over safeguarding and the points that one of the residents has
mentioned.
And also noise, have they, you know, is there going to be an unacceptable amount of noise
coming from the house?
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:44:33
They both submitted a noise management plan which categorically states that there will
be no noise that will be heard from outside the application property. They've got a number
of measures in place to ensure that that happens. They'll be supervised at all times. They won't
be allowed to, the visitors will only visit the property between eight and six. The children
will only, the younger kids will only play outside at certain times.
If the noise becomes excessive, they've got a complaints procedure in place
so they can nip the bud with things very quickly.
But given that it's such a large plot, I wouldn't imagine that there would be that much noise disturbance.
Cllr Razia Sharif - 0:45:30
And just picking up from the point of it being a large plot, presumably there's ample parking
for the staff visitors.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:45:40
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:45:44
Yeah, I've read this in detail and I can't see any reason why we can't grant change of
use.
It's a large family home and I would not think with three children there would be any more
than the family that would live in this house.
So I can't really see any justifiable reason
to turn this application down.
And I think we need places where young people
can be kept in a good environment.
And this looks like an ideal location for that sort of thing.
Thank you.
Councillor Biskin.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:46:23
I can't see any reason on planning grounds, I do have concerns about noise levels. Unfortunately,
youngsters perhaps with conditions are more lively than others and I think there has to
be, I'm not sure there's any planning stipulation which can be put down as a condition to ensure
that that is adequate levels of reasonable noise are maintained. The levels of supervision
which were assured by the planning officer with the youngsters I'm sure is a part outside
planning is an opposite requirement anyway.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:47:01
So the drawing numbers include the noise management plan.
So if they don't adhere to it, then we can go back, look at enforcement of non -compliance
with the noise management plan.
Thank you, members.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:47:19
The officer's recommendation is to approve the conditions.
All those in favour, please show.
Unanimous, Chairman.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:47:31
Thank you. That application is therefore approved.
Is there any other business?

11 Any other business

None, Chairman.
Thank you.
If I remind public and members to leave quietly and promptly,
I therefore close this meeting at 19 .47.
Cllr Clive Amos
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Clive Amos
Cllr Richard Bassett
District councillor for Roydon and Lower Nazeing ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Richard Bassett
Cllr Tom Bromwich
District councillor for North Weald Bassett ward
Independent
View profile Cllr Tom Bromwich
Cllr Barbara Cohen
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Barbara Cohen
Sukhi Dhadwar
Principal Planning Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Sukhi Dhadwar
Cllr Steven Heather
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Paul Keska
District councillor for Ongar ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Paul Keska
Cllr Alan Lion
District councillor for Grange Hill ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Alan Lion
Vivienne Messenger
Democratic Services Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Vivienne Messenger
Cllr Razia Sharif
District councillor for Epping West and Rural ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Razia Sharif
Cllr Graham Wiskin
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Graham Wiskin