Planning Committee A - Wednesday 18 March 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee A
Wednesday, 18th March 2026 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Vivienne Messenger
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Yee Cheung
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Steven Heather
  5. Cllr Razia Sharif
  6. Yee Cheung
  7. Cllr Steven Heather
  8. Cllr Tim Matthews
  9. Yee Cheung
  10. Marie-Claire Tovey
  11. Cllr Tim Matthews
  12. Cllr Steven Heather
  13. Cllr Alan Lion
  14. Yee Cheung
  15. Cllr Alan Lion
  16. Marie-Claire Tovey
  17. Yee Cheung
  18. Cllr Alan Lion
  19. Yee Cheung
  20. Cllr Steven Heather
  21. Cllr Alan Lion
  22. Yee Cheung
  23. Cllr Alan Lion
  24. Yee Cheung
  25. Cllr Alan Lion
  26. Yee Cheung
  27. Cllr Alan Lion
  28. Yee Cheung
  29. Cllr Steven Heather
  30. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  31. Yee Cheung
  32. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  33. Yee Cheung
  34. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  35. Marie-Claire Tovey
  36. Cllr Steven Heather
  37. Cllr Will Kauffman
  38. Yee Cheung
  39. Cllr Will Kauffman
  40. Yee Cheung
  41. Cllr Will Kauffman
  42. Yee Cheung
  43. Cllr Richard Bassett
  44. Cllr Steven Heather
  45. Cllr Tim Matthews
  46. Cllr Steven Heather
  47. Cllr Richard Bassett
  48. Yee Cheung
  49. Cllr Steven Heather
  50. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
  1. Yee Cheung
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Steven Heather
  5. Cllr Jeane Lea
  6. Cllr Steven Heather
  7. Cllr Joseph Parsons
  8. Cllr Steven Heather
  9. Cllr Jodie Lucas
  10. Cllr Steven Heather
  11. Cllr Tim Matthews
  12. Marie-Claire Tovey
  13. Yee Cheung
  14. Cllr Tim Matthews
  15. Cllr Steven Heather
  16. Cllr Richard Bassett
  17. Cllr Steven Heather
  18. Yee Cheung
  19. Cllr Alan Lion
  20. Cllr Steven Heather
  21. Yee Cheung
  22. Cllr Steven Heather
  23. Marie-Claire Tovey
  24. Cllr Tim Matthews
  25. Cllr Steven Heather
  26. Cllr Razia Sharif
  27. Cllr Steven Heather
  28. Yee Cheung
  29. Cllr Will Kauffman
  30. Marie-Claire Tovey
  31. Cllr Will Kauffman
  32. Marie-Claire Tovey
  33. Cllr Will Kauffman
  34. Marie-Claire Tovey
  35. Cllr Steven Heather
  36. Cllr Steven Heather
  37. Cllr Tim Matthews
  38. Cllr Steven Heather
  39. Cllr Steven Heather
  40. Vivienne Messenger
  41. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

1 Webcasting Introduction

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:00:00
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 setting throughout the meeting is turned off
and set to audio only. Members and public speakers are reminded to turn on the microphones
before speaking and turn them off when they have finished. Thank you. My name is Councillor
Stephen Heather, I'm the chairman for tonight's meeting. 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 Natalie Cole who is in charge of webcasting. To my left I have Marie Claire
Tovey, lead planning officer and Yi Chang from planning. Also I believe, is there somebody
on? No there's not. Right, thank you. Public speakers, you should have been briefed by

2 ADVICE TO PUBLIC AND SPEAKERS ATTENDING THE COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

democratic services before you came in. You will have three minutes to speak to state
your case. Again, remind you to turn the microphone on before you start and turn it off when you

3 Apologies for absence

Vivienne Messenger - 0:01:25
finished thank you apologies for absence chairman I've had apologies from

4 Substitute Members

councillor Cohen thank you substitute members I've got councillor
whiskin substituting for the duration of the meeting all right thank you

5 Declarations of interest

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:01:37
declarations of interest members I'll declare an interest in as it's a non
of giving you interest by virtue of the fact
that on item eight, I live in the ward.
I'm also a member of the town council,
but had no recollection of actually dealing with this
if it came before us.

6 Minutes

Can I take the minutes of the previous meeting
on pages five to seven as an accurate record?
Thank you.
We then move on then, oh sorry,

7 Planning application EPF/0800/25 - Chase Farm, Vicarage Lane, North Weald Bassett, Epping CM16 6AL

before we go further just to let you know that item 932 Alderton Hill has been withdrawn.
So we won't be hearing that. So our first application agenda item 7 planning application
EPF stroke 0800 stroke 25 Chase Farm, Rickeridge Lane, Northfield Bassett, Epping, CM 16 6AL
on pages 8 to 16 of the agenda.
And Councillor Bromwich, would you like to wander the floor?
This is just to inform you, members of the public, all Councillors are not allowed to
actually sit in on the committee if it's in their ward.
Thank you.
There is no substitute.
Yee Cheung - 0:03:01
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
So the application is Chase Farm,
located to the south of the Crij Lane
and is an existing employment site.
And in the adopted local plan,
as you can see on my right,
it's been allocated as NWB .R4
for residential development.
But as you can see on this plan here,
the wider site here is reference NWB .R3 and this application is the North Wild Master
Plan area, which is currently pending consideration. Here we are. This plan shows the application
site right in the centre and surrounding the site is the North World Bassett, the R3 strategic
site. As you can see on the plans, this is an outline application on this site, this
one as shown in the presentation. As you can see, the site has been clearly designed so
it's set back from the employment site. As you can see, the red lines on this site are
actually cycle lanes and paths. So you can see that it's set back. And the brown bit
here to the south and around are residential development. So it's actually taken into account
this employment site when it's been designed and developed.
Here we have the application site and it shows ... That's the application site in red to
your left. Then to your right you've got the existing block plan of what shows in site.
Here we have the proposed block plans and the proposed units.
As you can see on the corner, there's a small rectangular unit and immediately to the centre
you've got an L -shaped unit.
The rectangular unit measures approximately 7 metres by 15 metres and it's got a floor
area of 105 square metres. The L -shaped unit, it's approximately 17 .5 metres wide and 19 .5
metres in depth. The L -shaped floor area is approximately 247 square metres. So in total,
The development is 352 square metres.
This plan shows the elevation drawings of the proposed units.
As members can see, they are nestled amongst the existing units and they're not too dissimilar
in height design -wise when compared to the existing units.
This is like the close -up image, aerial image of the site.
And these photographs here shows the existing units that are currently on the site.
So for the rectangular building, it will be sited behind this palisade security fence.
and inside you can see some cars parked in there, but that's where the unit 1, the rectangular building, is going to be located.
For the L -shaped unit 2, it's going to be sited approximately here, so this palisade fencing will be removed and it will be sited within this area here.
So, while the site is allocated for residential development, there's no evidence before the
council that the businesses will be ceasing at any time soon or the site will be coming
forward for housing. On balance, the development is considered acceptable because it's an existing
employment site. The units will support the growth and expansion of businesses and enterprises
in the rural area in accordance with policies.
As the elevation drawing shows,
the design appearance is considered acceptable.
There's no adverse impact on the residential amenity.
As I previously shown,
it doesn't affect the wider master plan area
because it's been designed around it.
Highways has raised no objection
because the existing there's an existing road so it's a track that serves the
existing businesses already on the site and yes there's no objection in
principle subject to planning conditions Thank You chairman thank you we have a
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:08:51
public speaker on this item and that's Adriana Jones from Northfield Parish
Public Speaker - 0:09:02
Council. I am. Thank you very much. I would like to address two issues. Firstly, the parking
allocation. Building A, which is in the lower central part of the site, is proposed to consist
of four units, but only three parking spaces allocated. This building will also replace
what seems to be a location for parking or storage of vehicles. Building B, which is
in the western part of the site is proposed to consist of three units, but has five allocated
parking spaces. The applicant also states that these spaces are in addition to the existing
unallocated parking spaces that already exist on the site. But where are these? They are
not identified on the plan, nor are they visible from Google Earth, which shows a cramped,
cluttered and congested site. The best case scenario in terms of parking is that it's
poorly designed and simply placed where there is seemingly a space. Secondly you
cannot ignore the wider picture. The current planning system places great
emphasis on placemaking, good design, shaping an area, positive planning,
spatial principles and having master plans or frameworks used to guide
development to ensure a successful place is created. The local plan has allocated
this site as one of five sites for residential development as part of the
Northfield -Bassack Strategic Master Plan area,
as detailed in policy P6.
And the site forms an integral part of the master plan
created to guide and shape a cohesive development
of these five sites.
However, the executive summary in your report
states that policy E1 seeks to retain
and enhance existing employment sites
and uses this as part justification to support the proposal.
Whilst this may indeed be an existing employment site,
it is included in the local plan policy P6
for residential development and part of the master plan.
The local plan can't have it both ways.
Viewed in isolation, many of the points made
by the planning officer are valid.
However, this site cannot be viewed in isolation
as it forms part of a wider strategic plan
for Northwood Bassett to create
a cohesive sustainable development.
If approved by this committee tonight,
you would in effect be intensifying the employment use
of a site allocated for residential development
that would sit dead centre of a strategic housing allocation
which will undoubtedly have ramifications
for the future residential occupiers
of the master plan area.
The master plan for the site sets out that development
will be brought forward in accordance
with the requirements of the strategic master plan.
This site does not.
The applicant suggests that policy P6 should be ignored
as this isn't an application for residential development.
You cannot simply ignore strategic policy
in your own local plan.
The officer's report suggests that EFDC was never sure this site was going to be
developed for housing anyway and nor does it really matter if it's developed
as it won't stop the other sites from being developed. That is not good
planning and it will create a disjointed disconnected development with a noisy
employment centre right at its heart. Thank you very much.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:12:06
Thank you. Ward councillors. Members.
Cllr Razia Sharif - 0:12:21
Thank you, chairman. Two things. Can we adjust the lighting, please? It is really bright
in chambers if that's okay. Thank you. Parking on paper meets the requirements
but how are we going to control the overspill because potentially there could
be overspill so how are you going to or how is the applicant going to control
the overspill of parking.
Yee Cheung - 0:12:52
Sorry, yeah, for you chairman, thank you.
We've got a planning condition here,
condition eight for details of car parking
and demarcation of park, including the size and numbers
to be submitted and approved by the council.
So hopefully that will address
the concerns raised this evening.
Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:13:16
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:13:18
From the presentation and what I've read, I don't have any issues with this application.
One thing that does interest me, and I'd like to know the rationale behind it from the officers,
please, is around condition seven with the delivery times.
I know Amazon and I'm sure multiple other mass delivery firms operate from 6 a .m. to
10 p .m. delivery times which obviously allows a lot of deliveries to happen outside of the
peak road times.
I know this is a sort of standard condition that we put on lots of these kind of commercial
applications.
And I just wonder if that's actually the wisest thing to do because obviously being restricted
from 8 till 6 you're then encouraging deliveries which I'm guessing they're going to be fairly
regular for a sort of a development like this to happen at the absolute peak time of other
road users whereas if we was to actually make that earlier or later we could potentially
cause less disturbance on the road but maybe there's a if there's an answer or rationale
Yee Cheung - 0:14:31
behind that please. Thank you chair, thank you councillor. This
This is our standard condition for no deliveries and dispatches outside the site and the hours.
Marie-Claire Tovey - 0:14:52
I think this condition is more to protect residential amenity rather than to keep traffic
flow.
So the shorter hours are to avoid trucks or HGVs coming into the site later, which could
cause residential disturbance rather than any impacts on the highway network.
The condition can of course be changed, but the reasoning behind it is more to do with
rather than the flow of the traffic.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:15:31
Thank you for the explanation.
And I think I would wholeheartedly agree with that
in condition six, because obviously for people coming
and going to and from the site,
we wouldn't want to encourage really early access
and really late access.
But I would think in terms of potentially,
you know, not necessarily opening it up later in the evening, but potentially earlier, you know,
in the world we live in now, there is sort of mass deliveries, everyone's got multiple parcel
deliveries. And actually, if that's happening earlier in the morning, outside of peak time,
I think that causes less disturbance. And I'd be interested to see what other members
thoughts on it but I'd be inclined to change that condition to a sort of 6 a .m. start time
with a 6 p .m. finish time which is you know keep the finish time as it is but move the
start time two hours forward to encourage that that call of activity to be done early
in the morning rather than sort of at peak time. It'd be interesting to see what other
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:16:43
In fairness, if it did prove to be awkward for the occupant, they can ask or can apply
for a variation of condition if it is proving that it's affecting their business.
Just a couple of points.
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:16:59
What is the proximity of residential development?
Can we have a look at the plans around there?
Sorry Councillor, is this map you're referring to?
is a close proximity to that, so if they did introduce earlier access, would that impact
anybody close by?
Yee Cheung - 0:17:37
All right, so based on this plan here, the existing residential properties are on my
cursor here. And this is the entrance to the site. This brown area here, sorry, this brown
area here is the the actual the application that's actually a spending
consideration at the moment for the the wider area sorry there is some
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:18:13
residential properties close by is that what you're saying yes it's only these
Marie-Claire Tovey - 0:18:24
ones here that's the essential properties that's existing.
Yee Cheung - 0:18:26
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:18:29
The second question I had was I am writing and thinking that the existing buildings are
going to be removed and replaced by these newer buildings so what is the additional
gain in space do we know or is it a sort of a net zero increase in space?
Yee Cheung - 0:18:47
So there is actually, on my photographs, it shows that there is an existing building actually
on this site.
So the rectangular unit will be simply replacing what's here on this corner here.
Over on this side where it's vacant, it's currently used for open storage as shown on
my photographs just now.
And this is where the L -shaped building is going to go.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:19:18
Are they replacement buildings or are they in addition to what is there?
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:19:20
Yee Cheung - 0:19:23
There are no buildings here at the moment. There is only an existing building here that
is not shown on the plan.
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:19:32
On page 11 where you have the two units, Unit 1 says the application site currently occupied
by an existing building and then unit two applications currently offered by an existing
building.
So what's?
Sorry, Councillor, which paragraph?
Yee Cheung - 0:19:50
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:19:56
So I'm looking at page 11, design of development, where it's describing the two units.
And then again.
Replacing the existing building and infilling the back.
Oh, right.
This is about English.
Oh, sorry.
Yee Cheung - 0:20:12
So there's an existing one that's on this corner here.
And it's going to be replacing that one.
Here, it's going to infill.
Sorry, apologies.
Yeah.
It's not replacing any building but it's infilling here.
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:20:36
Okay, so the question is what additional space is the building taking up?
So it's going to be a net increase in capacity.
The net increase will be...
Yee Cheung - 0:20:46
So you've got the L -shaped building that's going to, that's 247 square metres.
And then you've got this unit here that's 105 square metres.
right select
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:21:18
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:21:19
Councillor Whiskin Thank You chairman can we have clarity as to whether it
seems to be a dispute from the parish council about whether it is in the local
plan as an employment zone although it is not and secondly if we were minded to
approved this consideration to noise from these units going forward needs to
be there needs to be a condition on that I believe in terms of impact potentially
on the master plan development further down the road I think that's what should
be considered.
Yee Cheung - 0:21:59
Regarding to the noise, condition five, the applicant has submitted a noise impact assessment
to support this application. It's being assessed by the environmental health and they have
advised that if the development, that the development should be in accordance with the
noise assessment, noise impact assessment.
So that's addressed the issue.
And apologies, what was the second question?
The first question was,
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:22:34
the report seems to conflict with the statement
from the parish council.
Parish council is saying that the employment zone
is not in the local plan and would be swallowed up
with the master plan for residential development.
that is not implied on the plans we've looked at
on the screen today.
Yee Cheung - 0:22:58
So the existing use of the site is employment site
and that's a lawful use as well
because some of the buildings
has got lawful derangement certificates on them.
So it, and that's been there for quite a while,
for quite some time.
But on the allocated, the site allocation,
yes, it does say it's for allocation for residential use.
But as the officers undertaking the site visit,
the business is, this is an unbalanced decision.
It's, the site's not gonna be,
cease employment anytime soon.
and that's why we've come to a conclusion
with regards to these units
and it's acceptable on this site.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:23:57
Therefore, if the employment zone was to continue
and then decide that they were not going to continue,
is the remaining area, well, the existing area
which currently is used for the employment zone,
would that be able to be appropriately used
to be developed for housing in line with the rest of the housing stock which is being built.
Marie-Claire Tovey - 0:24:27
Yes, it is an allocated site for housing currently, so it could be brought forward for housing in the future if this allocation remains.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:24:39
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:24:41
I support people coming forward with commercial floor space.
It is very important.
We heard a lot about the drive for employment, et cetera, last night in session.
The one thing I don't understand and perhaps the officer can sort of clarify, but I think
is how the site works in terms of vehicle movements.
Because it seems to me,
I appreciate there's been some things happened
with the way the site's laid out,
but the rectangular building at the end
seems to be parked in what I would call
the sort of turning head.
It seems that if the site is developed
where the car parking spaces are,
if a vehicle does come down, a delivery vehicle or such,
it's gonna have to reverse its entire way out of the site,
which then is gonna conflict
because it would turn around where the Sheffield stands are.
So I don't think we'd necessarily want to see a vehicle
reversing the entire way through a busy industrial estate.
But I don't know if someone's looked at that.
But if you look at that, that plan's not helpful at all.
It's the proposed site plan
that shows where the car parking spaces are.
So if that was as busy as I suspect it will be,
because I'm a big believer in people needing these spaces,
I just, I think that's gonna be,
congestion central
Yee Cheung - 0:26:13
yeah uh... for comes to my mind is that your concern but highway hasn't raised
an objection to it
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:26:32
that that's not sensible planning.
You don't want vehicles going through an industrial estate
backwards.
They don't have windows in the back.
We're going to actually turn around now.
Yee Cheung - 0:26:46
Is it be spenced off at the minute?
Be spenced off, yes.
So I'm going to show you the pictures.
The site is fenced off at the moment.
This is how they parked the vehicles.
There is capacity on site for the turning.
Sorry, you are missing the point.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:27:16
If that is a gated courtyard area, once a vehicle has gone in there, it can turn around
and go out the way it came.
But that's not going to exist, is it?
It's going to be car parking.
So if a vehicle gets all the way into the end, say it's a big, long wheelbase Mercedes
sprinter or such, how is he going to get out?
Yee Cheung - 0:27:52
I'll come back to the Councillor on this.
The existing site has already,
it's got capacity for turning therefore,
and it functions as it is.
what we can suggest is asked as a condition
for turning areas to be provided.
If that will address the concern.
Councillor Besser.
Oh, you're giving my...
Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:28:31
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:28:35
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:28:36
I appreciate Councillor Cutham's concerns.
I'm just actually looking on Google Earth now.
And I think, to be honest, it's the...
There isn't a need to condition anything on there.
I think, you know, there's multiple...
It's never going to be a site that has large HGVs going in and out because of the main
access route wouldn't get in and out.
out on that bend where it says Chase Farm units at the top there. So I think it's
only ever going to be small sort of road vehicles, vans and cars are like going in there and
I think there's multiple places down there for them to turn round. So yeah, I don't
think we should get too stuck in the long grass on that particular point.
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:29:19
Councillor Bassett.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:29:23
Just one bit, just for clarification.
It doesn't say anywhere in the report the use of these units, so I'm assuming they'll
be B8, same as the others.
Thank you, Chairman.
Yee Cheung - 0:29:38
The units will be for light industrial use under Class G, close brackets, free.
So, yes, and all of the units on there are for storage and distribution uses.
Yeah.
Members, the officer's recommendation is to approve the conditions.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:30:04
All those in favour please show. The anonymous chairman. Thank you therefore
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:30:13
that application is approved.
Councillor Promish did you want to play musical chairs?

8 Planning application EPF/1769/25 - Former Pet Cemetery, Claverhambury Road, Waltham Abbey EN9 2BL

Thank you. Now I can move on to agenda item 8, which is application EPF stroke 1769 stroke
The former Pet Cemetery, Claverhambury Road, North Mabie En92bl, on pages 17 to 35 of the
agenda.
Yee, you'll take us through this.
Yee Cheung - 0:31:10
Thank you, Chairman.
The application site is a formal Pet Cemetery.
The red line on the application site, as shown on the left hand side, is the application
site with the access off Clover -Hambury Road. The blue line of the site is also under the
The site is approximately 0 .36 hectares and the site gradient is high to the north of
the site and then gently slopes to the south.
Here we have the site layout plan and this is the application site.
So in the centre of the site we have an amenity building.
These rectangular markings here will be the static caravans, mobile homes.
And then these rectangular smaller ones are for the touring caravans.
And then here shows parking spaces.
This is the application, this elevation drawing shows the proposed amenity building to be
cited in the middle of the site. It's going to be shared between the two pictures and
the amenity building is approximately 12 .5 metres wide, six metres deep and four metres
to the ridge. Here we have some site photographs. You've got this photo here
shows part of the clever Hanbury Road towards the site and then this photo is
taken looking southwards to the site. This photo on the left here shows the entrance
of the site and this photo on the right shows the access track to the site.
Here we have the site photographs looking down southwards to the application site.
Here we have further walking closer to the site.
You've got the wider surrounding and the application site is roughly where my cursor is here.
And here we have, again, walking further down the site, the application site will be roughly
is roughly here and just looking down southwards towards the site. Here we have
some photographs showing some building materials on the site and to the left
the left photograph and to the right, this is where the application site is roughly here.
The officer report goes into details and the application has been determined against the
adopted local plan policy H4 part B.
Within the officer report,
it also discusses great green belt, grey belt,
and the current unmet need based on the shortfall identified
and confirmed by the planning policy team.
With regards to design and appearance,
it's considered acceptable because it's a single storey
in height and therefore would have minimal impact
and the character and appearance of the area. There's planning conditions imposed to restrict
the number of pictures on the site and also conditions to ensure that no commercial activities
or businesses can operate within the site. This is to protect the residential community
in the area.
With regards to the access track and the access point
off and clever Hanbury road,
highways has raised no objection to this.
And therefore it's concluded that it's recommended
for approval subject to conditions and legal agreement.
Thank you, chairman.
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:36:38
We have a public speaker on this item, so an objector.
Michelle Clark.
If I remind you, you have three minutes.
Turn your microphone on.
You don't need to stand up unless you prefer to.
Okay.
Public Speaker - 0:36:51
Chair, Councillors, we the residents strongly object to this planning application.
This proposal represents inappropriate development in the green belt and the Office of Report
does not provide very special circumstances to override that fundamental policy protection.
It is clear that the intent behind recommending approval, in principle, is to address the
Council's difficulty in meeting its gypsy and traveller pitch targets. The recommendation
before you cannot be considered safe or robust. Firstly, this is a harmful green belt development.
The report itself acknowledges that the proposal is inappropriate and harmful to openness.
The report attempts to justify the scheme by reclassifying the land as grey belt.
This is not a brownfield site.
Its condition is a result of neglect and unauthorised activity, not previously developed land in
planning terms.
The enforcement notice issued in July 2023 confirms that the unauthorised use and associated
works have already harmed the openness and character of the countryside.
This land forms part of the wider rural setting and should be restored, not developed further.
The site was a former pet cemetery with over 150 gravestones across the whole field.
Many graves were bulldozed down by the previous owner, meaning the whole field may still be contaminated.
This makes it a highly sensitive site for residential development.
There is no clear or detailed evidence that the whole field has been properly assessed for contamination.
The enforcement notice required materials of which thousands of tonnes were tipped to
be cleared from the land within a three month period from July 2023.
This has still not been complied with.
This raises further uncertainty about what remains on site, such as asbestos.
The land is not safe or appropriate for a residential use.
There is no assessment of how rainwater harvesting will be achieved.
This will require a tank of some form possibly sunk into the ground in an area of possible
contamination since there is no design in the application for a tank structure
above ground. The greatest concern is where the water supply will come from in
periods of drought as there is no mains water. This is a weakness in the
sustainable development proposal. It is suggested that generators will be used
for electric supply. Generators are not silent. The area is an open countryside
with very little noise, particularly at night. Noise can be very intrusive even
the generator is fairly quiet and there is also a risk of air pollution from fumes.
The report mispresents the area as residential. There are seven kennel sites being run as rescues,
charities, boarding, with two registered vet practises tending to sick dogs on these sites,
along with residential properties attached to these kennels. Combined with unresolved
concerns about the previous use and the condition of the land, the recommendation is unsound.
In addition, we understand not all Councillor and Planning Officers have visited the site.
We therefore respectfully urge the committee to refuse Planning permission. Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:40:07
All Councillor.
Cllr Jeane Lea - 0:40:16
Thank you, Chairman. This site is not in the local plan and it is in the Greenbelt and I cannot accept
that it's special circumstances just because we have not got enough sites. There's plenty of
Brownfield sites that are coming up that possible traveller site can be put. I know this site,
this area very well having been the Councillor for 22 years, Galley Hill Road leading to it,
I cannot believe that the highways have no objection.
Two cars cannot pass in numerous areas along the road.
And it dwindles out that in areas, well, it's so disgraceful.
My small car, it's a wonder I never got swallowed up
in the potholes.
The whole area are quite affluent houses
with small businesses, a nice community,
and all the greyhounds that would be along the side of what this site would be.
And they have... I mean, I used to take my nephew up there every week,
cleaning out the greyhounds and walking the dogs.
And so this site, they have hundreds of people going up and down,
walking dogs and everything.
It's just not sustainable. There are no amenities.
The road has no curbs, no pathways.
and if you're going to have two pitches, which I believe could be four caravans.
The children, there is no bus service, there is no amenities, there's no running water,
there's nothing. And I cannot believe that this has now come up and it seems to be acceptable
that, oh yeah, we'll just stick it in the green belt. Well, it's not acceptable to be
stuck in the green belt there. And I cannot agree for this to go ahead. And I just hope
that all the panel have been to see this area
and that hopefully they'll be sensible and go against it
because this would ruin this completely.
That field was a farmer's field.
It's all farmland round there.
I've troweled round there over the years for a long time
and it's just not acceptable
and it's just not viable to be dealt with.
Thank you.
Councillor Parsons.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:42:32
questions. Thanks Chairman. I know residents have serious
Cllr Joseph Parsons - 0:42:35
and genuine concerns about the site so I wanted to talk about a couple of points. Firstly,
the site isn't in the local plan and there is already a provision for a traveller site
in Waltham Abbey as part of that local plan so I think greenbelt development for that
purpose would undermine it. Policy is clear that traveller sites in open
countryside should be limited and because it's a rural green belt location and the officer
says in the report that trips will be by car, it's a difficult one because planning is looking
at sustainability and trying to look at sustainable methods of developing but this proposal doesn't
seem to achieve that at all. I think it's clearly inappropriate development in the green
belt and the report says that as well and I don't think it meets any special circumstances
that would outweigh the harm that it causes.
It is an important consideration but I don't think it meets justifications, sorry the need
is an important consideration but I don't think it outweighs the development in the
green belt.
It is part of the rural setting of Waltham Abbey and it has got a lot of character so
So if we develop that area, it can change it forever, which would be a shame.
But I know it's important to address the lack of traveller pitches.
It is very important, but need alone does not meet that and prove that it's suitable.
In this case, I don't think special circumstances are met to develop on the Greenbelt, especially
where there is a proposed site already in the local plan.
I don't think members should support the application.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:44:14
Thank you. And joining us on teams, I believe we have Councillor Jodie Lucas. Are you there?
Cllr Jodie Lucas - 0:44:23
Good evening. Thank you. I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak on this item.
I have significant concerns which align with other local councillors, people and the town
council who strongly object to this proposal. The officer report suggests that unmet need
for gypsy and traveller pitches outweigh green belt harm and that conditions or section 106
agreement can address any impacts. I along with many others respectfully disagree. Greenbelt
policy is clear substantial weight must be given to the harm including harm to openness and very
special circumstances must be convincingly demonstrated. Providing just two pitches does
not meet that test. Harm to openness is acknowledged yet the recommendation relies on conditions to try
and mitigate fundamental issues. Conditions cannot make development acceptable in principle.
The site also lies within the Ettin Forest Special Area of Conservation, an internationally protected site.
The Council has a legal duty to ensure no adverse effect on its integrity and that certainty has not been provided.
Finally, there has been concerns raised about various other issues. Flooding, drainage, local amenity, health and the impact on rural character and openness of the area.
Taken together, these are serious unresolved issues that cannot be addressed with conditions or a Section 106.
In my opinion, a case for overriding Green Belt protection and granting approval has not been made.
Members should carefully consider whether this development is truly suitable. Thank you.
Thank you. Members, Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:45:59
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:46:03
Chair, just before we get too far into the debates, I'm sure members are all going to
have something to contribute.
We've obviously already heard from fellow councillors, outlying quite a few really important
points there.
One of the key things when reading the report was the relevant previous planning.
Could the officer please explain to us why under application EPF 1195 -25 the change of
use of land to use for keeping of horses including the erection of a stable building and barn
together with the laying of hard standing was refused because reading the conclusion
on this, it suggests that it was refused on the base of Greenbelt and not approving any
special circumstances. So I cannot for the life of me understand how putting stables
and horses on the field was deemed refusable under Greenbelt policy, but putting accommodation
and buildings on there is now acceptable. So I think before we go any further, if that
could be explained, I'd really appreciate that, please.
Marie-Claire Tovey - 0:47:23
Apologies, Councillors, that's application 039925.
Or the next one.
Apologies.
I will have to refer to the case officer for that one.
Yee Cheung - 0:47:45
Sorry, Councillor, we're going to cheque the reasons for refusal on that one.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:47:51
Chair, I think it is really relevant to this, often relevant history is included because
it is, as the title suggests, relevant.
I think in this particular case, it is incredibly relevant.
So as long as other members are happy, I'm more than prepared to just wait until officers
have had a chance to assess that information and give us a response to that.
Thank you.
We'll come back on to that one then.
Other members?
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:48:12
Councillor Bassett.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:48:16
Yes, on other related matters, I'm worried about the enforcement notice that the resident
brought up.
You know, they had an enforcement notice.
It was found against them.
They have put other soil on top.
It was a pet cemetery underneath.
What is on that land?
I'm very concerned of when they start digging it over or doing other things, what they might
find, contamination, you name it.
That does concern me.
That is conditioned in, I believe.
Any other members?
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:48:54
Yee Cheung - 0:49:00
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:49:03
A couple of things. First of all, the building on the site is quite extensive and I think
that is going to definitely impinge on the openness of Greenbelt. The height and structure
of that building is quite concerning. There is a Greenbelt implication. But I think more
the website, there was a reference to Natural England.
They are actually saying, as submitted, the application could have potential significant
effects on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation.
And their conclusion is the following information is required, habitat regulation assessment,
air quality and recreational disturbance.
Without this information Natural England may need to object to the proposal.
So, it says please re -consult Natural England once this information has been obtained.
Essex County Council have supported that.
So, there are already significant issues that haven't been addressed within the application.
I think they're raising concerns with me.
Okay.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:50:23
I have a response to that one about natural England.
Yee Cheung - 0:50:28
With regards to natural England,
the concerns were to do with atmospheric
and recreational pollution and recreational pressures.
And this will be dealt with through legal agreement.
And it's not too just, it's similar to how we deal
with house dwellings applications
when they're built within the radius, the FSAC radius.
So this is no different.
Thank you.
And have you a response yet to Councillor Matthews?
Councillor Matthews.
Please.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:51:07
Yes, sorry.
Marie-Claire Tovey - 0:51:13
The 1195 of 25 application, just bear with me one moment, it was refused due to the impact
on the green belt and also because of the absence of a section 106 agreement with regards
to mitigation for the FSAC.
Having had a quick glance over the officer report, it seems to be because of the size
of the proposed buildings that were previously submitted.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:51:47
So basically what our planning department is saying, four horses aren't allowed on
the site because that would impact the greenbelt, but potentially four living accommodations
now don't affect the greenbelt. That just does not make any sense to me whatsoever.
I'll be perfectly honest, I was hoping we'd have,
I was hoping that actually it was me misunderstanding
something and missing the detail here,
but it seems that that is the case
that the previous application for horses and a stable
was deemed unsuitable and obviously the inclusion,
the missing section 106, but we can't be in a situation
where if people contribute some money towards things, then we can navigate our way around
policies. That's not what the purpose of a section 106 is doing. And I think we need
to offer consistency. We cannot be saying in an application, and I appreciate policies
change so I was conscious of the date of the previous application because obviously green
belt has come in, et cetera, et cetera.
This was last year, this was 2025.
So how something cannot be acceptable
for horses and a stable in 2025,
but can be acceptable for people to live in
with multiple dwellings in 2026 is completely beyond me.
If I may, some other points as well,
I think the other councillors, both in the chamber
and joining us on teams have very eloquently put forward,
but I would like to reiterate as someone who's lived in that area for my whole life,
Galley Hill Road and Claverhambury Road are completely and utterly insufficient
for any further development. If we was in the position where we were looking at two or four
houses in the Greenbelt there would be not a chance it would even be before us this evening.
The fact of the matter is this complies with one policy and because of that it's being
put before us in my opinion and I do not see any which way that that can outweigh the impact
that's on the green belt.
I actually was interested in because it's not something that we've come across regularly
the traveller policy and gypsy policy so it was something I read up on and was interested
to see that, and I think Councillor Parsons mentioned this as well, that the national
policy is clear that traveller sites in the open countryside should be strictly limited.
Well, you couldn't get much more in the countryside than this particular site.
You know, Galley Hill Road and Claverhambury Road is actually a dead end. There is a bridle
path and a byway at the very end of it, and there is residents in the area experiencing
huge disruption at the moment where roadworks are being done to actually
improve the end of Galley Hill Road so HGVs and vans, cars, all types of
vehicles are trying to find other means of accessing the site and you're seeing
there's reports and I've seen it for myself of vehicles going down
going down footpaths, going down bridleways.
It's such a crazy, crazy location to be having,
I cannot understand how the officer has got
to the conclusion of a recommendation for approval.
We're talking about sustainability of a location
and the amenities there.
There isn't water, there isn't drainage,
there isn't electricity, so we're basically working
on the basis that the applicant or the inhabitant are going to effectively live off grid and
with sustainable, renewable methods, which I can't see how that's remotely sustainable.
And obviously, people have mentioned about the sack. We talk about it regularly here,
the importance and you know how it's internationally recognised yet we seem
to now be brushing that aside because there's one particular policy that this
works for and there's a section 106 it just honestly blows my mind I'd be
interested to hear what others say but from what I've read in the report and
what I've seen there is absolutely no way I would be supporting this
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:56:28
Cllr Razia Sharif - 0:56:35
application. Thank you. Other members? Councillor Shri. Thank you. I have to agree with
Councillor Matthews. There's so much wrong with this. I cannot believe that it has
been approved with conditions. I mean the fact that there's as Councillor Matthews
has already said water, power, drainage, enforcement notice from previous, what's changed that
it's now approved? There's so much wrong with it and I will not be supporting this application
this evening.
Thank you. Would you come back on that, Yee? Why it's being supported?
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:57:09
In terms of the enforcement notice or...?
Yee Cheung - 0:57:14
No, no, no. Why? This is now because of the shortfall I was just hearing.
yes yes
yes thank you chairman. The reason the office is supporting this application is because of the unmet need
and hence why
this has come forward.
Councillor Kaufman
Thank you chair, I was just going to take the opportunity if I may just to
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:57:38
say how well I thought the public speaker spoke on this
and also just to echo the comments of my colleagues.
As everyone knows, I go on about consistency a lot
and I don't see the consistency again with this one.
Picking up the excellent points
that were made by the public speaker,
I wonder if the officer would care to comment on them
and just balance off what were presented to us
versus her understanding of the site
because I just can't follow the logic through.
Again, I won't echo too much what Councillor Matthews has
said and my colleagues.
But it would just be interesting to get an understanding
of how the planning balance has been arrived at beyond
that one unmet need policy.
I don't think that is necessary sufficient in itself to overcome
what is clearly major harm to the green belt.
But I'll open it up to the officer.
Marie-Claire Tovey - 0:58:51
Ms.
been outlined in the plan. As we've got an unmet need, we need to take into account
national policy through the MPPF, and that's specific about allowing development when plans
are out of date, unless there is significant, unless doing so would significantly outweigh
any benefits.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:59:31
How would one point overcome the entirety of the rest of the wait of the MPPF?
Marie-Claire Tovey - 0:59:40
That's the way the MPPF has been written, that it has to work hand in hand with local plans,
and as our local plan is out of date because we've got the unmet need.
That's not what I meant.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:59:52
How are you taking that point of the lack of supply to completely overturn the green
belt policy, which I would have thought you would tilt the balance in favour of the green
belt position?
Marie-Claire Tovey - 1:00:08
That's not the way the MPPF has worded it.
It's so that if there is an unmet need, that applications are brought forward so it can
override other policies. It is to push forward development rather than prevent it. That is
the justification behind the wording in the MPPF. It is in those cases where there is
an unmet need, it is to push forward development to meet that need.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:00:43
Right members, the officer's recommendation is to approve with conditions and subject
to a 106 legal agreement.
All those in favour please show.
None Chairman.
All those against.
Eight Chairman.
Abstentions?
One Chairman.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:01:06
Therefore that recommendation has not been accepted.
Have we a reason for refusal?
Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:01:15
Thank you, chair.
I'll try and keep it concise.
I think there's three main reasons for refusal.
I think there is excessive damage to the green belt
without special circumstances being met.
I think it is an unsuitable site
that doesn't meet sustainability measures.
And I think there is concerns around land contamination.
And those are our three main reasons.
I mean, we could add in there as well,
damage to the ESAC.
Visual impact.
Yeah.
Those would be the four reasons
I would put forward for refusal.
That is your proposal of your seconder.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:02:01
All those in favour accepting that proposal?
Unanimous chairman.
Thank you.
Therefore that application has been refused.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:02:13
Can I just double cheque who the seconder was?
Because two hands went up.
Vivienne Messenger - 1:02:18
Councillor...
That's it?
That's it.
That's it.
Okay.
Thanks.

9 Planning application EPF/2069/25 - 32 Alderton Hill, Loughton IG10 3JB

10 Any other business

Cllr Steven Heather - 1:02:22
I therefore close this meeting at two minutes past eight.
you
Cllr Richard Bassett
District councillor for Roydon and Lower Nazeing ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Richard Bassett
Yee Cheung
Senior Planning Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Yee Cheung
Cllr Steven Heather
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Will Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jeane Lea
District councillor for Waltham Abbey North ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Jeane Lea
Cllr Alan Lion
District councillor for Grange Hill ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Alan Lion
Cllr Jodie Lucas
District councillor for Waltham Abbey West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Tim Matthews
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Tim Matthews
Vivienne Messenger
Democratic Services Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Vivienne Messenger
Cllr Joseph Parsons
District councillor for Waltham Abbey West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Joseph Parsons
Cllr Razia Sharif
District councillor for Epping West and Rural ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Razia Sharif
Marie-Claire Tovey
Team Manager - Applications and Appeals
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Marie-Claire Tovey
Cllr Graham Wiskin
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Graham Wiskin