Planning Committee B - Wednesday 25 February 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee B
Wednesday, 25th February 2026 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Serena Shani
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Serena Shani
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Ken Williamson
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mary Dadd
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Cllr Mary Dadd
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Serena Shani
  6. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Kelly Sweeney
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Sue Jones
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Sue Jones
  9. Cllr Ken Williamson
  10. Cllr Sue Jones
  11. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  12. Cllr Sue Jones
  13. Cllr Clive Amos
  14. Cllr Sue Jones
  15. Cllr Mary Dadd
  16. Cllr Tim Matthews
  17. Cllr Sue Jones
  18. Cllr Arash Ardakani
  19. Cllr Sue Jones
  20. Cllr Mary Dadd
  21. Cllr Sue Jones
  22. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:00:00
Thank you.
Good evening everyone. Thank you. Before we commence this meeting I need to read the following webcast announcement.
Members, if you could just bear with us, we've obviously got a little echo.
Good evening.
Good evening. That's much better. Thank you very much. I do apologise for that.
Before we start the meeting officially, 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 of course to turn them off when they have finished please.
Thank you very much my name is Councillor Sue Jones and I am chairing
tonight's meeting. I would just like for the sake of the webcast and for members
and members of the public to introduce people who are sitting up here with me.
To my right is Councillor Will Hoffman, who is our Vice Chair tonight.
To his right we have Serena, who is our Democratic Services Representative,
and she will be taking minutes and advising us on constitutional matters.

1 WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION

And to the far right is Steve, who is doing our webcasting for us tonight.
On my left, I have Kelly, who is the planning officer who is presenting tonight's case.
To Kelly's left, we have Ashley Heller, who is the head of Transport for New Communities
from Essex County Council.
We then have David Sprunt, who is from Jacobs.
We then have our Senior Planning Officer James Rogers and then finally at the far end we
have Rob Walker who is the legal representation from Trowers and Hamlyn.
That said I'd like to move on to...
If anyone is on Teams, can you please make sure that you are muted?
It's in the chamber, is it?
Sorry, thank you.
Okay, try again.
Right, yes, we're there.
Okay, thank you.
That has, however, reminded me to introduce people who are joining this meeting on Teams.
So we have Jenny Gould joining us on Teams and we have Gary Woodall on Teams and we also
have Councillor John Whitehouse on Teams.
Okay.

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

Item 2 on tonight's agenda has been covered by Serena and you have been given the advice.
I would like to emphasise that we do limit your presentations to three minutes. I know
in some ways it seems a short amount of time considering the complexity of the application,
but we do have to be fair and we do have several speakers tonight so please be mindful and
can you please make sure that you do wind up. Once the buzzer goes I normally give you
about 10 seconds to wind up and it's much easier for you to wind up naturally than me
to interject and get awkward. So if you could make sure you wind up that would be lovely.

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Thank you. Item 3 tonight is apologies for absence. Serena, I'm coming to you.
Serena Shani - 0:05:45
Apologies from Councillor Williamson. Councillor Matthews will be substituting for him.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:05:57
Thank you very much indeed. I think we've also received apologies from Councillor Norris.
Serena Shani - 0:06:05
I didn't receive any but yes but okay.
I was certainly aware that he was not attending so if you could add those.
Sure, sure.
I think they have been given.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:06:15
And thank you very much indeed Councillor Matthews for substituting tonight.

4 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Thank you.

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Item five on the agenda then is declarations of interest.
Members any declarations?
Councillor Williamson. Thank you chair I'm absent from that side of the chamber
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:06:33
but present on this side of the chamber. The reason I'm sitting here is because
I'm the lead member for EFDC on the Joint Committee of HGGT. Thank you. It's a
non -pecuniary interest. Absolutely thank you and Councillor Whitford. Thanks
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:06:49
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:06:51
Chairman and likewise as the substitute member for Councillor
Mr. Williamson, I should do a lot likewise declaration.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:06:59
Any further declarations?
Thank you.
In that case, members, we are moving on to item six,

6 MINUTES

which is to confirm the minutes of the meeting
held on the 21st of January, 2026.
Councillor Dadd.
Thank you.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:07:16
I have got a query which relates to the solar farm refusal,
which I understood the discussions for one of the reasons for refusal was it
was in Greenbelt and on reading the refusal reasons it basically says that
the Greenbelt is is Greybelt and I don't think that's what the committee
considered because we are waiting for Arup to make decisions.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:07:44
A very valid point. Members who were here at that meeting and can you just direct me
Councillor, to add to the page number where that is obviously included.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:07:53
I'm sorry, I haven't got it, but it's actually in the actual...
Seven, thank you.
It's the actual...
It's the actual minutes that...
Yes, but the refusal reasons given on the website are different to what was...
when it explains Greenbelt is different to what we discussed in the meeting.
I do think that needs to be corrected.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:08:20
Yes, I can see where you're coming from.
Serena, where do we stand in…
Serena Shani - 0:08:36
Yes, I was given that by the planning officer, but I can go back to him and say…
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:08:44
In that case, members, what I'm going to do, I'm going to ask Democratic Services to come back, confirm that,
because obviously it's very important that what is in our minutes is also matched by the actual notice that was issued.
So I'm going to ask for those minutes to come back to our next meeting.
Okay.
Is that okay?
Yeah, yeah.
That's fine.
Thank you.
Right, thank you.
So in that case, we will defer confirming the minutes until that issue has been resolved.
In that case we are moving now onto item 7.

7 EPF 1793 24 Land at Latton Priory, North of Rye Hill Road

This is the planning application EPF 1793 -24.
This is an outline planning permission for land at Latin Priory, north of Ryhill Road, allocation site SP4 .1.
It is an extremely complex case and very interesting at the same time.
I would like to very quickly thank the members who managed to attend a quite interesting site visit,
and definitely quite a different site visit, but thank you for your forbearance on Monday.
I'm now going to hand over to Kelly to present the application. Thank you.
Kelly Sweeney - 0:10:06
Thank you chair and good evening members. This application relates to a strategically important allocated site
recommended for refusal. It is an outline application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site with all matters reserved apart from access.
Before I go through the proposals,
I would like to make an additional amendment to the committee report. To confirm the number of objections received to date is
119 rather than 103, but the
representations listed in the report are covered.
And I'm moving on to the presentation.
So here we have a red line plan for the site.
The site is located approximately 1 .7 miles north
of the civic centre here, and is just south of Harlow.
It has a development area of approximately 120 .64 hectares.
The site comprises predominantly arable fields
and woodlands, and has a varied topography with gradients,
more severe on the northern side of the site. The site is bounded by Rye Hill Road to the
west with open fields and a row of detached dwellings on the opposite side of the road.
There is also Rye Hill Water Tower to the west. To the north of the site is mainly residential
development which falls within the district of Harlow and to the east we have London Road
which runs south of the site. Further east is the M11 Junction 7. To give members a bit
more context here we have an area view of the site. You will note key features such
as the water tower to the south here. You've got Ryhill Road which is to the west. To the
east you've got London Road which is down here with the M11 Junction 7 close by. Here
we have Latin Priory Farm where there are several listed buildings. Briefly we have
number of site photos. You can see that the site comprises mainly open fields
bound by residential development to the north and at the bottom here we have
Ryhill Road. As set out in the committee report, Latham Priory is part of the
Harlow and Gilston Garden Town which was one of the areas designated as a
garden town by central government in January 2017. The site is allocated
within the adopted local plan.
Key requirements as part of this allocation include
the provision of a minimum of 150 ,000 homes,
employment land, traveller pitches, public open spaces,
a local centre, primary and secondary school provision,
health and community facilities and a SAN.
The allocation also includes a requirement for highway
and transport improvements, including a north -south
sustainable transport corridor with priority connector into the site itself and upgrades to
the M11 Junction 7. So in accordance with the policy SP3 of the adopted local plan which relates
to the delivery of the garden town and garden communities a strategic master plan and associated
design code have been produced in partnership with the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town which comprises
five local authorities including ourselves at Epping. The others are Essex County Council,
Hertfordshire County Council, Harlow District Council, East Harts District Council. The
strategic master plan and design codes have been endorsed by AFDC cabinet. So here we
have the illustrative plan. The purple areas is the mixed use site for the local centre
and community facilities.
Here we have the location for the schools,
the green areas to the south is the Sang
and the white square areas showed the location
for the residential development.
As stated at the beginning of the presentation,
this is an outline application with all matters reserved
apart from access.
Nevertheless, parameters plans have been submitted
which show the location of the proposed land uses for the development.
This first plan shows the proposed building heights for the development,
with high densities located towards the north and centre of the site,
highlighted in the darker blue, and lower density buildings
highlighted in the lighter shades of blue.
Next we have a parameters plan
which shows the proposed access routes and green infrastructure.
The main routes are highlighted from Rye Hill Road and London Road.
You can see a large proportion of the site to the south would comprise of green spaces
and the sang as per the strategic master plan.
So the arrows show the main points of access.
This one is the Rye Hill Road access and this one is the London Road access.
A number of traffic calming, road and access alterations are proposed around the site as
per the committee report, including alterations proposed on Parringdon Road and Fernhill Lane
to the north of the site.
Just to give members a brief overview, I will focus on some of the main proposals relating
to Rye Hill Road and London Road.
This slide shows some of the proposals for Rye Hill Road.
we can see that on the approach to the site there would be a change to the speed limit
reducing from 60mph to 20mph into the site and 30mph running further north along Rye
Hill Road. The new point of access into the site includes a segregated cycle lane and
footway. Further north an additional secondary point of access is proposed with priority
shared crossing proposed and widening of the existing footway which would provide access
for a small proportion of homes within the development.
This shows the access onto London Road from within the site.
Vehicles would only be permitted to turn left onto London Road.
There would be a bus only lane with a right turn only permitted as well as pedestrian
and cycle routes.
In addition to the proposals contained in the previous slides, a number of other proposals
have been put forward by the applicant, including the delivery of a new bus service, a tuking
crossing at Parringdon Road, downhill lane improvements such as the widening of footways,
upgraded lighting and wayfinding. Furthermore, an improvement scheme to mitigate the impact
upon the M11 Junction 7 has been proposed, referred to as the Keynes Lane intervention
in the committee report, which would involve a right -turn ban into and out of Hastingswood
Road and minor curb amendment. In the event of an acceptable application the
council would seek to secure the following financial contributions which
are set out in the committee report totaling in excess of 50 million pounds.
This would include contributions towards the delivery of the STC connector and
public highway improvements. The three million pounds highlighted associated
the Keynes Lane intervention has not been formally agreed by the applicant.
Here we have a number of other financial obligations associated with sports, leisure, health and
community facilities.
On to the main assessment and the reasons for refusal which are set out and full in
the committee report.
It is considered that the transport assessment submitted with the application fails to provide
sufficient information and underestimates the impact upon the highway network to a significant
degree.
Essex County Council Highways officers and National Highways do not consider the Cairns Lane mitigation intervention to be sufficient.
A monitor and manage approach has been agreed, which again is discussed in the committee report, that would attempt to address the concerns relating to the transport assessment.
Additional funding and trigger for the delivery of the Cairns Lane intervention has not been formally agreed with the applicant.
Both Essex County Council Highways and National Highways have objected on this basis and consider
that the development is likely to result in severe harm to the strategic and local highway
network.
There would also be cumulative impact as a result of the North Wheel Bassett development
sites and other garden town communities to be brought forward in the future and therefore
it is essential that suitable mitigation for this development is secured.
As per the committee report and the supplementary that was added to the agenda last week, the
level of affordable housing proposed is only 6 .3 % to 9 .85%.
Two separate independent reviews have been carried out on behalf of the council, which
have concluded that the level of affordable housing provision could be increased and potentially
to a significant degree depending on the phasing and delivery of the associated infrastructure.
As set out in the committee report, the development is contrary to policy H2 of the adopted local
plan, which seeks the provision of at least 40 % housing on major sites.
Furthermore, its failure to deliver an appropriate mix of housing types, particularly affordable
housing, means that the proposal would fail to create a diverse, inclusive and sustainable
garden -time community.
There are five reasons for refusal recommended by officers this evening.
The first relates to the lack of sufficient detail and evidence to demonstrate that the
development cannot viably support the 40 % policy compliant level of affordable housing.
The second reason relates to the increase in traffic to the area in the absence of a
suitable mitigation strategy.
Next, we have a reason for refusal relating to the principles of the Garden Town, which
seek to deliver a range of housing types to create diverse, inclusive and sustainable
communities.
The last two reasons for refusal relate to the lack of a signed section 106 agreement
with respect to the various infrastructure that would be required to support this application
and mitigation of the FSAC.
In assessing the application, officers have had due regard to the requirements of the
planning policy framework and to the site allocation endorsed master plan. It
is acknowledged that the proposed development would deliver a large number
of new homes which would significantly add to the supply across the district as
well as community, leisure, health, education and employment uses which
would support a new garden town community. These matters have substantial
weight with substantial benefits. However, the weight that is attached to these
benefits become significantly lessened by the fundamental conflict with the requirement
for affordable housing and the severe impacts on the local highway network. Failure to deliver
a garden town community which accords with these policies in relation to highway safety
and affordable housing would also have implications for other allocated garden town sites including
those at Northfield Bassett. It should be noted that prior to this recommendation to
reviews, officers have sought extensive KC advice and have offered to continue to work
with the applicant to overcome the outstanding issues.
However, the applicant has declined.
For the reasons set out in the committee report, officers respectfully request that the committee
refuse the application.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:21:45
Members, we do have speakers on this item.
The first speaker is Roger Lowry, an objector.
Good evening.
Public Speaker - 0:21:57
Good evening, councillors, ladies and gentlemen,
Roger Lowry from the Epping Society.
Our concern here is the complete inadequacy
of a real transport infrastructure for this project.
Within the site, probably okay, but beyond it, chaos.
In early versions of the Latin Priory plans, we were told by the developers, in effect,
road access will be a problem, but not to worry, because we'll solve it with a sustainable transport
corridor. A bus, tram, cycle, walking route, heading north into Harlech Centre, possibly even
towards the station. This STC is actually baked into the local plan as a requirement for this
project, and on page 16 of your documents, the STC is described as a critical element.
I repeat, critical. However, on page 18, we see that there is no longer any commitment
to build this sustainable transport corridor. What does critical mean? How can the developers
now still claim to have a realistic transport offer? So let's just briefly imagine. What
What will these new residents do? They want to go to work, commute to London, take the
kids places, visit friends. Ah yeah, they'll walk to Harlow Centre, they'll get on the
nearest bus stop, there may be a route, otherwise it's Southern Way. They'll jump on their bikes
and scooters and operate Modal Shift and head out down those local roads. I think not. What
will they do? They'll reach for the car keys. Many of them will have come, perhaps from
London and they're thinking moving to the country would be great I can drive
around a bit more. Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. They have two options
Rye Hill Road. Many of you will know this. Essentially a country lane with blind
corners, narrow stretches where it's quite tricky to pass, flooding and then
they join at the junction that we see at Rye Hill Road and the main road. Always
accidents, broken glass and such like there. Or secondly they'll head on to the
B1393, they won't be allowed to turn right, they'll go left. So what will they do? They'll
swing around at McDonald's, they'll go round the roundabout and head south, lured by the
prospect of Epping Tube. We know what Epping High Street, Epping Parking, Epping Tube is
like. Add to that all the new residents from South Epping, it's simply not on. So I'm afraid,
without going round in circles, we cannot see any realistic mitigation to these problems
of traffic and transport, the project can't be described as sustainable and should be
refused. Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:24:46
Thank you very much. Our second speaker is Sue De Luca from North
Wield Parish Council. Good evening.
Public Speaker - 0:24:51
Good evening members. We wish to uphold our original concerns already laid out in the
officer's report. These are concerns shared by local residents and many of the statutory
consultees who value the long -term wellbeing of our community. This application, as currently
proposed, fails on so many different levels that they simply could not all be listed in
three minutes. It fails to provide even a basic amount of affordable housing at a time
when local families, young people and key workers are struggling to remain in the area.
It fails to provide for sustainable development the underlying principle to create a successful
Harlow and Gilston Garden town.
It fails to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure of most concern the lack of
agreement regarding improvement works to the M11 Junction 7 roundabout.
It fails to provide a mechanism securing essential services such as healthcare, education, utilities
and community facilities, thus possibly placing unsustainable pressure on already stretched
local services.
It also fails to protect both Rye Hill Road and Epping Road and its residents from unacceptable
levels of traffic generated by the development, detrimentally impacting the
road network. Most importantly, it has failed to engage with local communities.
The engagement with the parish council and local residents has not only been
sadly lacking but virtually non -existent. Where engagement has taken place, it has
really understand what our communities or this development needs.
Effective consultation is a fundamental part of responsible planning. Encouraged and supported
by the MPPF. The community deserves to be heard and their input should shape the development.
Unfortunately that has not happened here. Finally, it fails to provide the necessary
public transport provision, again a key component of sustainable development, without which
the 60 % modal shift will never be achieved. These failures, together with all the other
concerns and issues that have not been adequately addressed or resolved, result in a poorly
designed, unsustainable development which would have a severe negative impact on both
of the local and national road network
and with the successful creation
of the Harlow and Gilston garden town ideals.
We therefore fully support the officer's recommendation
to refuse as currently presented.
Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:27:48
Thank you very much indeed.
We now have the applicants agent Claire Britton.
Good evening.
Public Speaker - 0:27:57
Good evening and thank you for the opportunity
to speak today.
My name's Claire Britton.
I'm a senior associate planner at David Locke Associates acting as the agent for the joint applicants Hallam Land and commercial estates group
as a starting point and to clarify for
Decision taking currently paragraph 11 C of the MPPF is engaged which requires the approval of development proposals that accord with an up -to -date
development plan without delay
The planning officers report before you is comprehensive in its content and refers to the site being allocated for
development in the local plan under policy SP4.
That inquiry is a strategically important allocation
and has an important housing delivery role to fulfil.
There has been a high degree of collaborative working
to date, indeed through joint working and engagement
with the quality review panel,
the strategic master plan framework document
was prepared for the site and endorsed by the council
in July 2023.
As one of the four allocated new communities
at Harlem and Guildstone Garden Town
and the joint working since 2013,
it should have been expected that there would have been
a recommendation to approve this application
because it accords with policy SB4.
However, although there is an overarching vision
for the garden town, each of these new communities
has its own challenges.
As you would have read, Latin Priory's challenges
are viability and traffic impact
on the strategic highway network,
and they form the recommended reasons for refusal.
The applicants remain committed to working
with the Council and other stakeholders to bring forward the scheme in a timely manner.
But it's important to take a step back and recognise there's only so much that can be
afforded through the paying of financial contributions, while also directly delivering and supporting
services and infrastructure, and building affordable homes and providing onsite community
facilities.
Indeed, Policy H2 recognises such considerations exist and allows for viability appraisals
to be submitted.
This is what has been done. Whilst there is a high degree of agreement already on
what should be included in the section 106, the applicants have put forward what
is a justified and reasonable affordable housing offer. The applicants have sought
to work with the officers and the council's advisors to see if the offer
could be improved, such as jointly reconsidering the timing of payments to
aid cash flow. Regrettably that has not been possible to date. In addition, the
applicants remain confident that the concerns raised, particularly by Essex
County Council and National Highways regarding the traffic
impact on the strategic highway network, more specifically
M11 Junction 7 and its approaches can be addressed.
These are very much technical matters rather than
in principle objections.
Whilst we recognise your officers are recommending
that the application is refused, for what ostensibly
just two reasons, the applicants contend that in fact
planning permission can and should be granted
subject to an appropriate planning obligation
and conditions.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:30:57
Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Right, I'd like to invite Councillor Williamson to
speak to the committee at this point. Thank you.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:31:07
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members. I'm speaking with my HGGT hat on here. There's
so much work going on in the infrastructure delivery for the modal shift across the whole
of HGGT. All of these things have been known for many years. All of the
sustainable transport corridors are required to enable this modal shift.
Nothing's changed. The 40 % affordable housing has been in the plan since day
one, since all of the proposals have been looked at. I agree there are some massive
massive section 106 payments on this site but there are also a massive number of homes
being built.
I just want to say it's one of our allocated sites, in fact it's the second largest allocated
site in Epic Forest in our local plan.
Just as a matter of interest, the impacts of all of the allocated sites were already
taken into account in our local plan.
I can find no reason to change the officer's refusal reasons on page 60.
I totally agree with all of the comments in there.
It is very sad that we've got this far.
It's taken this long to get this far and we're still not there.
But I believe that it is a possibility to get this site going and with 40 % of affordable
homes on that site. Thank you chair. Thank you very much indeed. Members we
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:32:43
don't have any ward members in attendance tonight but I understand
that Councillor John Whitehouse would like to speak is that correct?
Yes over to you then thank you. Thanks chairman.
Yeah, I mean, this is an allocated local plan site
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:32:58
as we've heard, but it was allocated on the basis
of development would meet the requirements of the local plan
and the Harlow and Guildstone garden town
sort of plans as well.
And I think it's been very clearly set out.
The application doesn't do that.
And moreover, it doesn't really even meet the aspirations
set out the developers in their pre -application
consultation, particularly in terms of providing
in realistic alternatives to the car that would drive
the shift in transport modes, which is required
to meet the original commitments.
And I agree with the comments about delivering
the sustainable transport corridor from north
and that's vital, but as an Epping Councillor,
I particularly wanted to focus on the highways
from transport impact to the south given that Lyhill Road is not a suitable access for the
number of homes proposed before the main access comes into play and the
application doesn't sufficiently address the impact of development on the B193
through Fawnwood interwepting and particularly at the congested Palmer's
hill junction, there really isn't anything there to encourage people to use alternative
methods of transport, active methods of transport to the south and the assumption seems to be
that people want to go to the north and I did think that point about McDonald's access
raised both by the North Hill Parish Council and the Epi -Nasati, it was a significant one
given the traffic conflicts we already have at that area.
I won't say anything more because I think a lot
of it's been covered in what's already been said,
but I do think it's important that when we're thinking
about the highway's impact and the transport impact
that we take into account those journeys to the south
with development as well as making the development
into Harlow.
Thanks very much.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:35:17
Thank you. Right, members, I am going to open up the item for discussion.
Councillor Amos.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Cllr Clive Amos - 0:35:24
I have to say I was very disappointed to read this application.
I had, it turns out, naively thought that with the HGTV proposal,
which is, I think, quite an exciting project
that everybody had been beavering away for two or three years
working together, collaborating,
and that we would be presented with something
which had general agreement.
Well, I did read all the papers, and I'm afraid I was very disillusioned.
One thing, the affordable housing,
We had the supplementary agenda. Quite frankly, I find the figure that has now
been offered for affordable housing as derisable. It's nowhere near the 40%.
I was also very concerned about the transport systems, the highways and the
traffic management. The idea of the link into Harlow and down to Epping
was a very good idea with the busses.
But the idea that the roads at the trigger point
would be well down with the development,
I felt was entirely wrong and should be much earlier.
I wasn't able to go to the visit on Monday,
but I did go today and I drove around the area looking at everything.
And the suggestion that a road I'd never driven on before,
the suggestion that Rye Hill Road could play any part in this development,
I find absolutely risible.
I was surprised once I'd driven it that there hadn't been signs at the beginning
limiting the size of vehicles that could use that road.
It is quite unsatisfactory.
I became convinced by the Planning Officer's recommendation that this be refused and I
wholeheartedly support the refusal reasons which are contained on page 60 of the report.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Amos.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:37:47
Any other members?
Councillor Dadd.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:37:52
It was quite an eye -opener to me on the site visit.
Not just the narrowness of the right -hill road
from Epping up to where the site is,
and that I think is a problem area.
But I understood that that's, at the beginning,
certainly in the strategic framework,
that that was going to be closed
as far as traffic was concerned.
And now the suggestion is that even the HGVs for the building work may go along that Righill
Road which I think is actually quite unbelievable.
The other thing that surprised me was, and it's not mentioned very much, is the Southern
Way obviously was very congested.
It does need improvements.
I think that's one of the S106 agreements.
The other thing is, mid -afternoon, just how busy, coming back from the M11 junction 7
down Epping Road, just how busy that road was and how unrealistic it is to just have
the junction with no turning right.
If you look at the development of Old May and Baker site just outside Ongar on the Firefield
Road, they insisted for 100 -odd hours that they insisted on a roundabout to be built
before the development. I came away thinking, well, is there any way we could actually approve
this with conditions as the agent has actually suggested? But looking through all these documents,
I can't see that they have proposed any conditions that they are agreeable to that we would agree.
So it seems to me that though I personally now would not accept approving it even with
the conditions.
If we decided on conditions, and one obviously has got to be about the making sure a modal
shift is properly executed straightaway, the 40 % affordable and improvements to the road
network, I get the indication that they would not agree to it.
Sorry, I'm going on a little bit, but I wanted to actually make a couple of points which
I don't think has been raised.
IAC, when the agreement was passed in 2023, the master plan, the housing was 1050. We
We know in the local plan, except for master plans, that's got to be minimum.
This is now up to 1340, which is an increase of 290.
That's 28 % increase since the SMF in 23.
There's no indication in any of these papers, including from the agent, how that has influenced
the additional infrastructure that is required.
And I think that's really, really important.
When we looked at the plan, the density was pretty good.
It was in keeping.
We've got to remember, this was a hollow, extension of hollow.
We've got to remember that it was Hibbert's ideas.
It's an extension of that with the green wedges and so on.
And the higher density nearest to the existing development of about 40, I think to 45 for
memory and on the outskirts 20 to 30 was in keeping plus all the green spaces.
But increasing it by 28%, what does that do to the density?
What does that do to the actual character of it?
And I think that hasn't been addressed at all.
I also noticed that although this was endorsed in 2023, the wording in there suggested that
the reasoning will be used for endorsing it in pre -application advice and other development
related purposes.
Now I understand from the planning department that there has been no pre -application advice
at all.
So these two things, perhaps, we seem to have come to an impasse with this.
I think we need to actually, as soon as possible, bring forward an acceptable scheme.
This is not one.
We have been told by the applicant that if we refused or if we hadn't had a decision
by the 1st of March they were going to go to appeal for non -determination. It also has
been implied that they would go to appeal if it is refused today, which would be another
delay but equally it seems to me that they, and I haven't heard anything to the contrary,
that they are the ones that are the stumbling blocks in getting this approved. They were
quite happy to actually produce this document, this one here.
And on page 184 of that, they agreed to the transport
infrastructure.
They agreed to various things, several pages.
But it seems to me that that was just shallow words,
hollow words.
And I think the other thing we must remember, and I'm sorry I'm going on, is that this size
is virtually the same number of dwellings as Faden Boyes.
That's a big community.
We've got to have an inclusive community with 40 % affordable.
You can't just have it just for the private sector.
That's not a proper community.
And that they're not agreeing to this sustainable corridor, transport corridor, is unbelievable
because that goes right with take people cycling and walking and presumably a good bus service
straight into Harlow, into the recreation areas and part of it.
Now, they say that they will only do improvements to the road after X number of occupancy.
That is dangerous even now.
And the other thing is, putting sustainable transport as it improves, you've got to have it there from the start.
I think I've probably gone on too long, but I may come back on a couple of things if I may.
Thank you.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:45:20
Thank you. Councillor Matthews. Thank you Chairman. I think we could spend a very long
time looking at all the details of a scheme of this size. Fundamentally it
fails on affordable housing, it fails on highways, it fails on infrastructure
delivery, it fails on the sustainability of the transport and without a signed
section 106 agreement it fails on the environmental protection. These are all
policies that we have, these policies are set to guide us on the decisions we make
and we can we can deviate from the policies if we believe the benefits outweigh that there is absolutely nothing in this scheme that
convinces me that those benefits outweigh the
The conflicts of our policies that are in place, so I can't see any I think to be honest
It would be wholly irresponsible of this committee to disagree with the officers recommendation on this case. Thank you. Thank you
Councillor Articani.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:46:11
I'm not going to repeat what the
for the council mentioned about this scheme,
Cllr Arash Ardakani - 0:46:18
but having read the report and attended the site visit,
it's very clear the reason why it's been rejected
by the Essex Council highway.
And it was very useful to see the actual site
and the entrances and the rest of it.
And all the other points has been made
by the officers fully support the reason
for rejecting this application.
So I'm not gonna repeat what has been already mentioned.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Councillor Dadd.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:46:50
Just very quickly, I think it also ought to be acknowledged
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:46:58
that all the Easthearts objected, Harlow objected,
The HGGT objected, ecology had problems there, the FSAC, the Epping Forest, Conservatives
are concerned about it. I think I didn't see any of the statutory consultees had actually
approved it, but there also is a lot of concern about the effect on Epping Forest as well
from this, because if you don't have the modal shift that is even more detrimental.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:47:36
detrimental. Indeed, thank you very much indeed. Okay members any further comments?
In that case members we do have an officer recommendation to refuse
planning permission. All those in favour of refusing please show. Unanimous chair.
That is unanimous and that application has been refused. Members while we are
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:48:00
still here. I think it has been said with great regret that this application actually
came to this committee with this recommendation. It's a large site, it is a designated site
and I think many of us echo the frustration. I would like to put on record a great deal
of thanks to the planning officers and all the legal representation that they have been
able to draw on for the amount of time they have and also the background information that
you have given councillors so that we can really appreciate
the efforts that have been taken to try
and bring this to a positive.
And I would urge the applicant to talk
to our planning department.
They are keen to get a positive outcome.
It is a designated site and hopefully there is a way forward
that everybody can be supportive of
and can actually really support the underlying principles
of the Harlow, Guildstone and Garden town. It is so important.
Okay, but that item has been refused and we will move on to item 8 once my iPad wakes
up again.

8 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

I should know what item 8 is by the day.
Okay, so item 8 is of course any other business?
No other business, Chair.
In this case, Members, I am closing the meeting at 7 .50.
Thank you very much indeed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Clive Amos
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Clive Amos
Cllr Arash Ardakani
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Arash Ardakani
Cllr Mary Dadd
District councillor for Ongar ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Sue Jones
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Tim Matthews
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Tim Matthews
Serena Shani
Democratic Services Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Serena Shani
Kelly Sweeney
Principal Planning Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Chris Whitbread
District councillor for Roydon and Lower Nazeing ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Chris Whitbread
Cllr Jon Whitehouse
District councillor for Epping East ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Cllr Ken Williamson
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Ken Williamson