Planning Committee B - Wednesday 8 April 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee B
Wednesday, 8th April 2026 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Serena Shani
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Serena Shani
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jeane Lea
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Cllr Will Kauffman
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Sukhi Dhadwar
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Serena Shani
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Sue Jones
  7. Cllr Steven Heather
  8. Cllr Tim Matthews
  9. Cllr Sue Jones
  10. Cllr Mary Dadd
  11. Cllr Sue Jones
  12. Cllr Razia Sharif
  13. Sukhi Dhadwar
  14. Cllr Sue Jones
  15. Sukhi Dhadwar
  16. Sukhi Dhadwar
  17. Cllr Mary Dadd
  18. Sukhi Dhadwar
  19. Cllr Martin Morris
  20. Cllr Ken Williamson
  21. Rob Walker
  22. Cllr Sue Jones
  23. Cllr Martin Morris
  24. Sukhi Dhadwar
  25. Cllr Ken Williamson
  26. Cllr Mary Dadd
  27. Sukhi Dhadwar
  28. Cllr Tim Matthews
  29. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  30. Cllr Sue Jones
  31. Cllr Bob Church
  32. Cllr Sue Jones
  33. Cllr Mary Dadd
  34. Cllr Sue Jones
  35. Cllr Jeane Lea
  36. Cllr Sue Jones
  37. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Sue Jones
  2. Alex Sadowsky
  3. Alex Sadowsky
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Sue Jones
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Sue Jones
  9. Cllr Jeane Lea
  10. Cllr Sue Jones
  11. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  12. Cllr Jeane Lea
  13. Rob Walker
  14. Cllr Ken Williamson
  15. Cllr Jeane Lea
  16. Cllr Mary Dadd
  17. Cllr Sue Jones
  18. Alex Sadowsky
  19. Cllr Mary Dadd
  20. Alex Sadowsky
  21. Cllr Mary Dadd
  22. Alex Sadowsky
  23. Cllr Mary Dadd
  24. Alex Sadowsky
  25. Cllr Mary Dadd
  26. Cllr Jeane Lea
  27. Cllr Sue Jones
  28. Cllr Will Kauffman
  29. Cllr Sue Jones
  30. Cllr Razia Sharif
  31. Cllr Sue Jones
  32. Cllr Will Kauffman
  33. Cllr Sue Jones
  34. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Alex Sadowsky
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  6. Cllr Sue Jones
  7. Cllr Razia Sharif
  8. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  9. Cllr Sue Jones
  10. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  11. Cllr Sue Jones
  12. Alex Sadowsky
  13. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  14. Cllr Sue Jones
  15. Alex Sadowsky
  16. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  17. Cllr Sue Jones
  18. Cllr Mary Dadd
  19. Cllr Sue Jones
  20. Alex Sadowsky
  21. Rob Walker
  22. Cllr Mary Dadd
  23. Rob Walker
  24. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  25. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  26. Cllr Sue Jones
  27. Cllr Jeane Lea
  28. Cllr Sue Jones
  29. Cllr Ken Williamson
  30. Cllr Mary Dadd
  31. Cllr Sue Jones
  32. Cllr Sue Jones
Share this agenda point
  1. Nick Finney
  2. Cllr Sue Jones
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Sue Jones
  5. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  6. Cllr Tom Bromwich
  7. Cllr Sue Jones
  8. Cllr Razia Sharif
  9. Nick Finney
  10. Cllr Razia Sharif
  11. Nick Finney
  12. Cllr Sue Jones
  13. Nick Finney
  14. Cllr Martin Morris
  15. Nick Finney
  16. Cllr Ken Williamson
  17. Cllr Mary Dadd
  18. Nick Finney
  19. Rob Walker
  20. Cllr Mary Dadd
  21. Rob Walker
  22. Cllr Mary Dadd
  23. Nick Finney
  24. Cllr Mary Dadd
  25. Nick Finney
  26. Cllr Mary Dadd
  27. Rob Walker
  28. Nick Finney
  29. Cllr Mary Dadd
  30. Cllr Sue Jones
  31. Cllr Bob Church
  32. Nick Finney
  33. Cllr Mary Dadd
  34. Cllr Sue Jones
  35. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  36. Cllr Sue Jones
  37. Cllr Ken Williamson
  38. Cllr Will Kauffman
  39. Cllr Sue Jones
  40. Rob Walker
  41. Cllr Will Kauffman
  42. Rob Walker
  43. Cllr Will Kauffman
  44. Rob Walker
  45. Cllr Sue Jones
  46. Cllr Razia Sharif
  47. Cllr Sue Jones
  48. Rob Walker
  49. Cllr Sue Jones
  50. Nick Finney
  51. Cllr Sue Jones
  52. Cllr Sue Jones
  53. Cllr Mary Dadd
  54. Cllr Sue Jones
  55. Webcast Finished

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:00:00
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 activate
their microphones before speaking and turn them off when they have finished. Thank you
and welcome to this evening's meeting. I am Councillor Sue Jones and I will be chairing
tonight's meeting. I'm first of all going to introduce you to the people sitting beside
me. To my right I have got my Vice Chair, Councillor Will Hoffman. And then to his right
we have got our Democratic Services Officer, Serena Sharni. And to the far right we have
got Matt Picking who is doing the webcast for us.
Apologies, Chair. I just have noticed that there are two councillors on the committee
that I am not really aware of. Councillor Whiskin, who are you substituting for?
I am substituting for Arash and the Chairman of the Council.
She informed you several days ago.
I am substituting for Councillor Clive Amos.
Yes, that's perfect. Thank you.
Sorry, I just wanted to cheque.
Thank you very much indeed for checking. Thank you, absolutely.
Back to the introductions.
To my left is firstly Nick Finney,
the Interim Inclamation Team Manager
in the Planning Department.
To his left is Rob Walkers from Trowers
for our legal representation tonight.
And then we have Alex Dalski, Senior Planning Officer.
And then far left we have Suki Dalda,
Principal Planning Officer.
We have one further member of the planning team,
James Rogers, the Applications and Appeals Manager,
who is online tonight.
Okay, and again, just further clarification,
both for the webcast and for members of the public,
the members sitting to my left
are members of the committee.
The councillors are sitting to the right,
our councillors, they may be ward members
or they may be just other members of the council
who are not actually members of the committee.
So everyone, all members have a right to speak and to share their opinions, but it is only members of the committee on the left that actually take part in the vote to make the decision.

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

Okay, I think then we can move on to item two and I'm sure the Democratic Service Officer has explained to you the format of the meeting.
I would just like to emphasise how important it is, speakers, that you keep to your three
minutes. At the end of three minutes you will hear an audible buzzer and a little while
after that in terms of seconds, if you haven't wound up naturally, I'm afraid to say I'll
be interrupting you and having to terminate at that point. We have to be like that, so
it's fair for everybody, so we all have the same amount of time.
So I think that is item two covered members.

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

So if we can go on to item three and over to Serena for apologies for the absence please.
Serena Shani - 0:03:45
As stated before, Councillor Amos and Councillor O 'Connor have all given their apologies.
Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:03:56
And is there for substitute members to be confirmed?
Serena Shani - 0:04:01
Yeah, it's Councillor O 'Shea and Councillor G Whiskin for the whole meeting.

4 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Thank you.
Councillor Lee.
Can I give apologies to Councillor Stocker, please?
Cllr Jeane Lea - 0:04:10
Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:04:14
Got further apologies.
So just to ask, is Councillor Church standing in for Councillor Stocker?
Yes.
Right, okay.
Yeah, it's sent by Councillor Bailão.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you, sorry.
Right, Councillor Coughlin.
Sorry, Chair. I was just going to say that Councillor Bromwich seems to be running a touch late.
He'll be along for his item.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:04:40
As soon as. Nothing. Okay, that's fine. Thank you very much indeed.

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cllr Sue Jones - 0:04:44
Okay, so item 5 then. Any declarations of interest, members?
That's good, thank you.

6 MINUTES

Item 6 is could we confirm the minutes of the meeting of the committee held on the 25th
of February and agree the wording of the minutes of the 21st of January 2026? If you remember
at our February meeting there was a correct query about the wording of the reasons for
refusal. So I think we have all been notified of that change. Are we agreed on both those
minutes? Thank you minutes. Thank you members. Members, with your
permission it's been suggested that we have a slight change to the agenda item.
This just allows continuity between the officers who are presenting so with your
permission we'd like to effectively swap items 8 and 9
over. So we will be hearing the North, sorry 8 and 7 over. We'll be hearing the Northfield
Nursery application first and that is with Suki and then we will hear Alex's two applications
subsequent to that. Members any reason not to do that? Thank you very much. Right, in
In that case, we are going to start with the application numbered 8 on your agenda, pages
22 to 44.

8 EPF/0626/25 - Northfield Nursery, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey, E4 7RG

This is the application for Northfield Nursery, Stewartston Road in Waltham Abbey.
I would like to pass straight over to Suki for her presentation.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good evening, members.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:06:39
Can everyone hear me?
Thank you.
Before I begin, I would like to make a brief correction to the report.
In site and surroundings, the public right of way does not run through the application
site.
It's located to the north of the site, running through Stewart -Sloan Close and then continuing
in a northwesterly direction.
Also on page 28 of the agenda, third paragraph down, a now superseded exception to inappropriate
development has been listed.
The current MPF test is in fact now limited in filling
or the partial or complete redevelopment
of previously developed land,
including a material change of use to residential
or mixed use, including residential,
whether redundant or in continuing use,
excluding temporary buildings,
which would not cause substantial harm
to the openness of the greenbelt.
There is therefore no longer a reference
to affordable housing.
An objection was received from Epping Forest Heritage Trust since the agenda was published.
The concerns raised include the FSAC air quality impacts and green belt harm.
They argue that B8 development would increase, not reduce traffic, particularly HGV movements,
and that claimed reduction in vehicle trips through the Epping Forest SAC is not adequately
evidenced, especially given the significant increase in parking provision.
On that basis, they believe proposal will risk harm to the FSAC and should contribute
to air pollution mitigation in line with policy and the habitats regulations.
The objector also disputes the site being treated as previously developed land and raises
concerns about the increased height and bulk of the proposed buildings, which are considered
harmful to the openness of the green belt and are insufficiently screened.
Overall, they claim the proposal constitutes inappropriate green belt development and cumulative
impacts should be considered.
Two additional neighbour objections have also been received.
They reiterate objections already included in the agenda.
This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings
and structures and the redevelopment of the site for storage or distribution purposes,
B8.
The proposal includes associated parking services,
servicing areas, access arrangements, landscaping,
and other ancillary works.
The site measures approximately 5 .5 hectares,
lies within Greenbelt,
and sits to the rear of Seward Stone Road.
It's currently accommodates a mix of buildings,
including storage areas and parking.
The surrounding area contains both residential
from commercial uses.
The site also benefits from retrospective
planning permission for the use as a garden centre.
This application is before members this evening
as more than five objections have been received
from neighbouring residents along with an objection
from the Royal form of the town council.
These are listed on pages 26 and 27 of the agenda.
Concerns include the proposal would constitute
inappropriate development in the green belt,
The site would not reflect the site's former horticultural use and would be inconsistent
with the local plan.
HGV activity and general vehicle movement will cause highway safety concerns.
Potential for traffic congestion, light pollution, impacts on privacy and amenity of neighbouring
residential properties.
Some residents also express concerns that the existing class EUs could facilitate a
wider range of commercial activities which they consider unsuitable adjacent residential
properties and which they believe may have implications on the FSAC.
Waltham Abbey Town Council have raised similar concerns, particularly in relation to noise
overshadowing, traffic parking pressures and general safety issues.
This slide shows photos of the existing site.
View one is towards the main garden centre building.
View two is towards the existing greenhouses to the front of the site.
View three is from the west of the site.
The view 4 is from the south of the site to the north.
Existing floor space of the garden centre and greenhouses total over 8 ,000 square metres.
The main garden centre has a building, a maximum height of 8 .8 metres.
The surrounding buildings are of a lower height.
The lowest heights are 4 metres.
This slide shows the floor plans of the proposed units.
The top plans are of Unit 5. The ground floor of this unit provides 405 square metres of space.
The first floor mezzanine covers 10 % of the ground floor area.
The bottom plans are of Units 1 to 4. The ground floor of each unit provides 398 square metres.
The first floor mezzanine level also covers 10 % of the ground floor area.
This slide shows the proposed site plan.
The site is already classified as previously developed land.
The scheme introduces around 2 ,200 square metres of new built form, which is significantly
less than what exists today.
Hard standing is kept roughly to the same level but arranged more efficiently.
Because of this reduction in built volume and the more compact layout, the proposal
does not increase harm to the openness of the green belt compared with the existing
situation and therefore complies with Policy DM4 of the Local Plan.
A key benefit is the creation of over 23 ,000 square metres of green space, including new
landscaping and wetland habitat areas. This is a major uplift compared with the current
situation and results in a net gain of almost 6 ,000 square metres of open ecological space.
The landscaping includes wildlife friendly shrub and perennial planting.
A new attenuation basin is provided both drainage and biodiversity value.
This creates a meaningful buffer between existing and proposed industrial uses.
Most trees along the western and southern boundaries are being retained as a new native hedge.
Strengthens screening along the northern edge.
Overall the scheme delivers less built development, a more efficient layout and a greener more natural setting with significant ecological benefits.
This slide shows the sections of the site.
The top view is of the northern section of the site showing the front elevations of the units one to three and
the side elevations of five.
below is that of the existing view. The middle view is looking south towards units 2, 4 and
the side elevation of unit 5 and below that is the existing view. The bottom view is enlarged
scale of the top view. The red dashed line shows the height of the existing structures
of this part of the site. The buildings will have a maximum height of 7 .3 metres. This
similar to the height of a smaller two -storey house. Materials include UPVC windows, dark
green cladding and light green cladding. A baseline noise survey was undertaken by Ardent
on the site in November 2023. Two noise monitoring locations were used behind residential properties
on Seward Stone Road, which you can see here and here. One adjacent the garden centre near the rear
garden of the bungalow and a second near the rear garden of Mount Vernon both
positioned at the edge of the existing car park and set at standard air height.
The assessment confirms that the existing traffic noise from the A112 is
already the dominant background noise source in the area against this baseline
delivery and operational noise associated with the development.
periods resulting in a low overall impact. The principal noise source assessed were vehicles'
deliveries including HGVs, roller shatter doors and the use of electric forklifts. These
were modelled using a combination of site specific measurements and manufacturer data.
To further protect neighbouring residents, the assessment recommends the installation
of two continuous acoustic barriers, each two metres in height along the eastern boundary
here. As the final plant specification has not yet been confirmed, a precautionary condition
is proposed to limit plant noise levels to 43 decibels during the day and 37 decibels
at night, measured at the nearest noise -sensitive receptors. Overall, the assessment concludes
that deliveries, HGV movements and general site operations would have a negligible to
low noise impact, provided the recommended mitigation is delivered.
These measures are appropriately secured through planning conditions.
Conditions 23, 24 and 25 cover noise mitigation and plant noise limits.
Condition 17 controls external lighting.
Condition 18 restricts use of the southern access points.
Condition 31 to 32 regulates hours of operation and conditions 29 to 33 manage construction
impacts.
Highway officers have confirmed that the traffic levels associated with the proposed development
are comparable with the site's existing and consented use.
The assessment demonstrates a net increase of only three vehicle movements over the entire
day.
existing traffic levels were derived from a robust seven -day traffic count and future
traffic has been assessed using TRX data. These two datasets have been directly compared,
resulted in a predicted increase of just three daily vehicle movements. Given the negligible
scale of the change, it's considered immaterial, even if all three additional vehicles were
HGVs. In terms of parking, the highway authority
require a minimum of 15 spaces and there is no maximum standards. The proposal provides
60 parking spaces, well in excess of the minimum requirement and it is therefore fully acceptable.
There are currently no restrictions on right -turn manoeuvres or HGV access at the site. Introducing
a right -turn ban would not be feasible as there is no adequate turning facility in the
application demonstrate that the articulated HGVs can safely enter, turn within and exit
the site using the existing northern access. The two remaining vehicular access points
will be permanently closed, reducing turning movements and potential conflict points along
the A112. This represents a clear highway safety improvement over the existing situation.
The site benefits from direct access onto the A112, which is a priority one route within
the highway network and visibility displays are compliant with the standards set out in
the manual for streets and the design manual for roads and bridges. Accordingly, the proposal
is compliant with policy T1 of the local plan and will not result in any harm to highway
safety, capacity or efficiency. Vehicle access will be taken solely from the northern entrance
at Sierstong Road.
The proposal provides just over 2 ,100 square metres of modern employment space across five
units with new parking, servicing, access and landscaping.
This represents a reduction of more than 70 % in built form compared with what is there
now.
Mature trees are retained, landscaping is greatly enhanced and the scheme is judged
to preserve the openness of the Greenbelt fully compliant with policy DM4.
Existing traffic at the site is low.
138 AADTs, no HDV movements.
The proposed development is predicted to generate
fewer overall vehicle movements, 108 AADTs,
including 35 HDVs.
Only a small proportion of this traffic, 13 AADTs,
including four HDVs, will pass through the FSAC
and 200 metre buffer, resulting in a net reduction
of 29 AADTs movements in that sensitive area.
Therefore, there will be no significant increase in vehicle trips travelling through the Efrem
Forest Special Area of Conservation.
Given this net reduction, there is no requirement for financial mitigation in accordance with
the APMS.
The scheme delivers strong biodiversity enhancements including measurable biodiversity net gain,
55 new trees and long -term habitat management secured through Section 106 agreement.
design and landscaping have been reviewed and found acceptable noise and
highway assessment show no unacceptable impacts on neighbours or road safety
provided recommendations are followed. Sustainability features such as
air source heat pumps and solar panels will ensure compliance with policy DM 20
overall the development provides high quality modern employment for space
supports the local economy and fully accords with the local plan and the
national planning policy framework it's therefore being recommended for approval
subject to conditions and the completion of the section 106 agreement. Thank you chairman.
Thank you very much indeed. Members we do have some speakers on this item. The first
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:20:33
speaker who is speaking on behalf of the residents of Stewartstone Road has requested that his
objection be read out so Serena is going to be reading that out for us. Thank you. The
Serena Shani - 0:20:45
residents of Stewartstone Road most strongly object to the application for Northfield's
nursery. To date, the impact to our mental health has been extremely detrimental regarding
this matter. The stress and upset this has caused the residents is beyond immeasurable.
The houses will be drastically devalued and near on impossible to sell as who would want
to live with the storage and distribution centre directly at their back fence. We believe
that storage and distribution companies work around the clock, so when would the residents
be able to sleep due to noise and lighting from the site? There will be zero privacy
in our homes as the residents that back onto Hannah's nursery know so well as security
cameras are situated into our homes and whoever buys Northfield would do exactly the same.
HGTV drivers entering and leaving the site will be at a level to look directly into homes.
The lorries that will trade from this site may very well be electric but we are sure
that the staff vehicles will not be.
We already suffer pollution from the neighbouring Hannah Nursery where there are numerous car
businesses pumping out foul pollution on a daily basis.
The road itself is very old and already has dozens and dozens of lorries each day thundering
along at high speed.
The pavement curbs are literally flattened and non -existent in parts where lorries are
so wide and heavy they have been damaged and never been repaired or reinstated.
We have no bus route along Seawoodstone Road but it's okay for us to have untold lorries
on a daily basis. It's very dangerous to walk and there have been so many near misses in
the past. We hope that Epping Forest District Council realise the enormity of this situation.
Has a pedestrian got to be terribly injured or worse? There is a large number of care
homes along Sirwood Stone Road opposite and adjacent to Northfields. It is not fair that
residents of these care homes cannot feel safe and breathe the fresh air when on a walk
with their carers or family members. The training hours which would be put in place are unknown
at this point if this was to be allowed to proceed. There is a part of neighbouring Handers
Nursery which has had planning permission granted and those trading hours are never
adhered to. The residents have racing cars in and out around the clock and no one enforces
these trading hours. So how are we to expect Northfield trading hours to be enforced? There
is an ongoing problem with the drainage on Seward Stone Road and the new care home has
that only made matters worse.
The entire system is antiquated
and it has been overwhelmed with the development of the area.
This now will only make matters worse.
This is well known as Thames Water are here
on a regular basis at least once a month.
We have a single downpour of rain
and the road is completely flooded
causing awful traffic congestion.
Thames Water arrive with a pump truck
and day after day sit at Godwin Close
pumping the water away.
Northfield Nursery is a haven for wildlife as it is a rural setting and borders a protected
Lee Valley Regional Authority and Corporation of London Land.
The residents have badges in their gardens on a regular basis plus the bats which we
understand are protected by law.
It's all very well others will want to buy land for commercial gain but there must be
consideration and fairness for the community and the nature that has been here long before.
We must look after our precious communities and not allow the erosion for the future generations to come.
For these reasons we more than strongly object to this planning application, residents of Sewardstone Road.
Thank you very much indeed, thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:24:19
We also have the applicant's agent, Richard Collins from Lambest.
Good evening, thank you.
Public Speaker - 0:24:28
Good evening Chair and members.
My name is Richard Collins, Development Consultant for the site and I am speaking on behalf of the applicant.
At the outset, I would like to thank the Planning Officer for their thorough assessment of this
application and for their clear recommendation for approval.
This proposal represents a carefully considered redevelopment of a previously developed Brownfield
site, delivering a high quality, modern employment scheme.
Importantly, this is appropriate development within the Greenbelt and fully supported by
policy.
The scheme achieves a substantial reduction in built form, being over 70 % less in footprint
and floor space, resulting in a clear and meaningful enhancement to openness.
Build development is consolidated at the centre of the site, pulled away from the boundaries,
allowing for significant new landscaping and a far softer, greener relationship with neighbouring
properties.
The proposal replaces an existing, more intensive, retail garden centre with a light, small -scale
B8 use.
This is a far less harmful form of development, quieter, more controlled and with significantly
reduced activity, making it more compatible with both the greenbelt and nearby homes.
Vehicle movements will be notably reduced compared to the existing use, delivering clear
benefits for local residents, the highway network and the Epping Forest sack.
Protecting residential amenity has been central to the design.
Where activity currently sits hard against site boundaries, the proposals include a substantial
landscape buffer, creating meaningful separation and improving outlook.
Noyes has been robustly assessed, confirming acceptable levels, and a two -metre acoustic
barrier is also proposed to provide further reassurance.
The environmental benefits are significant.
The scheme delivers biodiversity net gain well beyond policy requirements, including
a 24 percent increase in habitat units and over 30 percent in hedgerows, supported by
55 new trees and extensive native planting.
Sustainability is embedded throughout with air source heat
pumps and PV panels helping to reduce carbon emissions and
future proof to development.
Members should also note that the scheme is the product of
extensive and positive engagement with officers.
Both the design and the planning conditions have been carefully
refined through that process to reach a form that is commercially
workable, protects nearby residents,
and which officers are satisfied with and are
recommending for approval.
In summary, this is a policy compliant scheme that enhances
green belt openness, introduces a far less intensive and less harmful use, reduces traffic
and activity, protects neighbouring amenity, delivers significant biodiversity net gain
and meets identified employment needs. For all these reasons and strongly endorsing the
officer's recommendation, we respectfully ask members to grant planning permission.
Finally, I would like to again thank the Planning Officer for their work on this application
and for their recommendation. Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:27:17
Right, members, I'll now turn to any ward members who are here and would like to speak.
Councillor Heather.
Thank you, Chairman.
If we take the town council's objections to start with,
the HGV, the assessment on the noise,
actually if I can roll two things into one.
The acoustic barrier, I think actually needs to be
the other side of the service road
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:27:45
to protect those residents in those houses.
The noise is stopping from the units,
but not the lorries going up and down that service road.
That's just the thing.
I'm pleased to see that the hours of operation are limited.
I think when I originally,
this came before the town council,
we were very minded to object to it.
In hindsight, and I haven't seen the amount of work
that the officers have done,
I think it's a much better proposal than what's existing.
It's a lot tied out and it's further away from the residents.
Yes, there are still issues,
but it will clear that site up
from where it stands at the moment.
Sluiceton Road is a nightmare at the best of times,
whether you've got lorries going in and out
of an additional site or just the normal traffic,
it's, they're not gonna increase.
Although a little bit, what the officer said,
assessment I think with the FSAC is not quite accurate in the report to what's
been submitted since. But if there are going to be fewer vehicle movements, well
I'm good. The green belt issue is the biggest one I think. We've established
that this is now previously developed land so therefore it's being repurposed
for something that I think is a more benefit than what stands at the moment.
So from my original thoughts, I actually do support this now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Matthews.
Thank you, chair.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:29:18
Yeah, it's a very difficult one this.
I've said it numerous times in the past,
it comes down to head and heart situation.
We're obviously here to represent residents
and I know there's many residents
that aren't happy with this
and we've obviously heard their objections this evening.
I mean, equally, I have had residents contact me that really don't like the nursery activities
that have gone on there.
So we're in a situation where you're never going to please everyone.
I think my colleague, Councillor Hever, has really highlighted quite a few points there.
And I do agree with him that I can't see in a very well put together report, I would like
to just note that to the officers, I think it was a really good report this time.
But I can't see a single planning reason why we would be able to go against the recommendation
this evening.
Following on from Councillor Hevers' point around acoustic barrier, I think we need to
try and limit the effect on residents as much as possible.
So I would agree that an additional acoustic barrier on the top end of the site would be
necessary.
and I think as well the size at the moment it states it's two metres higher
I think we just pause for two minutes council Matthews with just so that we
can right I think that's sent back to you council Matthews thank you chair
yeah I think it would be sensible to increase that height to four metres you
You know, we know on a site not too far from here
at Sousa -Dane Hall Farm not too long ago,
that was a modification we made to the conditions
to go from two metres to four metres in acoustic fencing.
And I think that's something that is really gonna make
a dramatic impact and ease the burden on residents.
I think it's also worth members discussing or debating
when that acoustic fence goes in,
because this is something that's been brought up to me
in the past of residents have said,
yeah, great, there's an acoustic fence put in,
but it's happened after the construction phase.
So all of the work has been done,
the heavy lorries and the vehicles, et cetera, et cetera,
the disturbance has been occurred and then a fence goes in.
And I actually think if it could be conditioned
that that fence goes in initially,
then that's yet another thing we're doing
to try and protect any negative noise impact on residents.
But as I said earlier, I can't find a valid planning reason to go against this.
So I can't see any reason that the committee would disagree with the officer's recommendation
on this.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks very much indeed.
Right.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:32:16
Members, firstly, before we start our discussion, I would like to thank those of you who did
manage to come to the site visit that was held yesterday.
I think you'll agree with me, it was an extremely useful site visit.
I do thank you and the officers for actually organising that for us.
Right, Members, Councillor Dadd first. Thank you.
Thank you Chairman. And interestingly, Councillor Matthews has raised two points which I have wanted to.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:32:42
First of all, I would like to say how useful it was going to the site visit.
and I thank the officers for organising that.
And the other thing is that it was also exceedingly useful
reading all the comments that came in
from members of the public,
even though they don't normally go on the website,
they are available for the members of the committee.
I've got a few points to make.
I'm very concerned about the noise,
and particularly at night.
and I think that some of the conditions perhaps ought to look at that in more detail.
For example, and I'll go through some of the conditions, but also reducing the opening hours.
I think people are fearful of what is going to happen and is it going to happen the same as Hannah's or the car business.
business. Now, quite often these B8 storage units are small businesses and I think that
if we actually set a more reasonable time of usage rather than assuming it's going to
be something like Amazon, then we don't know who's going to go in there. Anybody who specifically
wants anything increased that should be another thing to planning to increase
the hours of opening at the moment they're open till seven till eight night
six days a week which I think is not acceptable in a residential area and in
fact it's longer than in the construction stage which is from memory
8 till 6 and to Saturday till 1 o 'clock. If I could also say that the sound barrier, I'm
hoping that that would also mean that we can retain all the hedges and perhaps there ought
to be a conditioning to make more hedging because in lots of places where people have
an issue with sound, you put up quite high trees
or hedging or whatever, there is plenty of space to do that.
And again, that should be before construction.
So if we don't mind, I would like to just go through
some of the conditions that I think
with committee's approval, we should ask
if they could be amended slightly.
So, number 20, page 38, Rick talks about
on street parking and grounds works and construction,
et cetera, et cetera, and wheel washing,
but there's nothing there about litter picking.
From experience about construction in other parts
of the district, there is a problem with litter picking
and I think that that would be a useful thing to put in,
that they keep the site litter free.
Number 24 on page 39, prior to first occupation,
this relates to the two acoustic barriers
with a minimum of height of two metres.
That should be at construction stage
or before construction stage.
And the reasons, the same change the reasons,
but also I agree with Councillor Matthews,
four metres height would be much more acceptable.
and in the back of that it says the reason in order to ensure satisfactory living conditions
for future occupiers, well I don't know if it means future occupiers or whether it means
nearby neighbours and perhaps the wording of that could be made a bit more useful because
we're not having housing there, we're actually talking about living conditions of the neighbours
in Sewardston Road and any future neighbours. And then on 31, which is, again litter should
perhaps come on to page 42, condition 29, perhaps litter picking should be included
in their wheel washing facilities. Number 31 hours, no deliveries made by vehicles,
over 7 .5 tonnes to be taken, etc, etc, between outside the hours of 7 o 'clock in the morning
until 8 o 'clock at night on Mondays and Saturdays. I think that's quite unreasonable and I think
it should be 8 till 6 and till 1 o 'clock on Saturday.
And if they want, if a particular business wants
something outside that hours, they should specifically ask
for it as an exemption.
We don't know who's going to be in there.
And making that consistent, that would also then apply for
condition number 32, which says, use hereby permitted
should only be open to customers between the hours of 7 to 8 o 'clock at night again. I
think that should be 8 to 6 and not 24 -7 as seems to be implied by that condition. And
there seems to be 33, there is more stringent conditions for the construction period and
I think they should be brought in line.
And I think I've almost finished there.
But with those conditions, I hope that the residents
would find it much more acceptable because as I agree
with other councillors and the planning officer,
there does not seem to be any planning policy
in which we could refuse it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Shewiff.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:38:54
Cllr Razia Sharif - 0:38:56
Thank you, Chan. Thank you to the Planning Officer for this report.
Councillor Lidata has very successfully said all the points that I was going to raise,
but I can see, I just wanted to say that I can see the policy case for this,
but I'm still not convinced on the impacts.
The green belt concerns me, neighbour impact concerns me, and the traffic.
I mean, how realistic are we regarding the traffic,
the HUV vehicles on this road?
And with regards to neighbour impact,
given the proximity of these houses, 20 rear gardens,
how confident are the officers that that's going to mitigate
the disturbance of the noise?
I see Councillor Matthews point about the fencing
in working as a noise barrier,
and I agree that it should be higher.
But could the planning officer answer that for me?
Thank you.
I'm sure.
It's a good question.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:39:55
But you could also talk about the possibility
of it being increased to a four metre height
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:39:59
at the same time.
So if you could cover a couple of points in that.
Thank you.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:40:07
Yes, so the noise survey and assessment found that
because it was already a noisy road,
the levels of the activity generated by the proposal,
given that there was an existing garden centre
already in operation, which has,
when we did the site visit, it was clear
there was a number of coming and going.
Could I please ask members of the public not to speak
while the officer is talking?
I think what it is, everyone is in despair.
No, well, I appreciate that.
It's so heart -warming.
No, I fully appreciate that,
and we very much appreciate you coming
The very fact that you are here does reflect that.
It is just not fair on the officer who is trying to present some information to you
for people to be speaking.
Thank you.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:40:59
The acoustic report found that the noise generated by the proposal would not be harmful.
But in addition to the existing situation, they've suggested the installation of sound
barriers or fencing.
If the height is increased to four metres, that should improve it further.
And with the hours of use being limited as suggested, that should control it even further.
So the impact on neighbours shouldn't be excessive.
Thank you.
Councillor, do you want to come back on that?
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:41:56
Can I ask also that if the sound does go above that,
or if the vehicles are outside those hours,
will it be enforceable?
And also, I know the neighbours have problems already with the Hannah's one.
Should they not also be asking for enforcement on that? Thank you.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:42:21
Yes, so if they have concerns with Hannah nurseries, it should go through the planning enforcement team
who will investigate and take further action if necessary.
the condition will ensure,
should they not follow the condition
and we can take action that they've,
it's a breach of condition.
So we can tackle it on that basis.
So we would have powers to prevent them
from going beyond what has been permitted in any permission.
Okay.
Councillor Williamson and then Councillor Morris.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:43:01
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:43:03
Thank you chair. I fully take on board the acoustic barrier being installed at
the earliest possible point of the development and not left to the end. I
have some concerns with the four metre barrier because all of these properties
have very very small back gardens and basically they'll be looking at a four
metre high wall barrier, whatever you want to call it,
it is going to be, I think, quite obtrusive
in those small rear gardens.
So I think be careful what we're asking for here.
The planning officer said that two metres does the job.
It's a busy road, there's noise from the road.
I just have some concerns that that four metre barrier
is incredibly close to those buildings.
Thank you very much take that on board.
Very much, thank you.
Yes, certainly, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted just to draw members attention
to the MPPF and the tests for conditions
just so you can bear that in mind.
Rob Walker - 0:44:09
Planning conditions should be kept to a minimum
and only imposed where they are necessary,
relevant to planning and to development permitted,
enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.
So the reason I raise that is if you were to impose
conditions requiring a four metre high fence you need to be assured that that
is is necessary as far as I'm aware I'm not sure that the acoustic reports that
have been assessed by the council and have demonstrated that that that there
is a need for that and as the council has just pointed out that there could
be additional impacts by the imposition of a four metre fence thank you thanks
very much indeed members of any comments about oh sorry if I come back to
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:44:50
Councillor Morris, thank you.
Thank you, chairman.
I just had a couple of points.
Yeah, on the acoustic barrier,
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:44:56
I don't think we should be specifying a height.
I just think we should be asking that the acoustic barrier
is as effective as possible,
and then we can leave it to the experts
and know how high that should be.
I do agree it's worth installing it
before construction starts.
I agree with that.
I had a couple of other questions actually on that
for the planning officer.
The transport statement,
the transport statement didn't say the difference
between HGV movements for the new site
and the existing site.
It didn't give any hints as to whether that was more or less.
And I did think that was an important piece of analysis
that should have been done.
And the other question was about the building height.
When I looked at the plans that provided,
did look like the buildings were considerably higher
in the new plan.
Now that could be me trying to figure it out
from the diagrams that were given.
There's two points there.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:45:53
So the different height buildings across the site, but the central sales area building, the green building, that is the tallest building at 8 .8 metres.
Then the glass houses range from 5 metres to 4 metres in height.
But then if you, given that they're spread out
throughout the site, if you can,
and that it's a, the lawful use of the site
is a garden centre and they can change the glass houses
and make them solid.
And so, and then if you were to combine the volume
of all the different buildings together,
they still would have a volume which was much higher
higher than what is proposed in this application.
So the building is 7 .3 metres high,
which is lower than the highest building,
but higher than the majority of the glass houses on the site.
But then if you take it into consideration,
the all the development that is on the site
and what without planning permission they can do,
The effect is that the impact of the development is less than what the existing situation is.
And the HGV movement?
The HGV movement, the Highways Authority felt that there would be no relative difference in the likely HUV's.
from the existing use to the proposed use.
I think the, with actually the FSAC said there was a slight
increase, but the, because there was a reduction in car trips,
the overall, there was a reduction of 29 AADTs.
So given that was quite a significant reduction,
it was accepted that the impact would be less.
I think there will be free from the top of my head,
HGV journeys,
additional for a day, sorry.
Okay, okay.
Sorry, Councillor Williamson indicated
and I'll come to you, okay?
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:48:33
just a matter of interest on the site visit a large HGV poured in while we were actually
in the car park. It didn't stop our conversation. I don't recall there being that much noise.
So there are deliveries already. I totally accept there will be more in the change of
use. But there are lorries going in there at the moment.
Yes, indeed. Councillor Dutt.
Thank you. I wonder if I can ask a couple of questions of the Planning Officer. On the
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:48:58
site visit, and perhaps some of your diagrams might show it, I got the impression that where
the tallest existing building was, at 8 .8 metres, was where the 7 .3 height was going
to be. That's correct, yes.
Thank you. And the second point was as far as deadening any sound, would it be possible
to have a condition that they have to put hedges, dense hedges that are good at sound
absorption the other side of the actual fence and whether that would improve, if that would
improve the blocking of sound.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:49:46
I just showed, go back and show the plan, the acoustic...
Just bear with me.
So the acoustic fence is there and so if there was a hedge it would be on the roadway.
And so either there could be additional trees planted where you can see my arrow to sort
of screen the noise further.
Councillor Dash.
And what I meant was when we were at the site visit, there were hedging down here.
There was some where there was just fencing and there were some where there was also hedging
on the garden centre side and I thought that that adds to some noise insulation.
So what we could do is request more trees to be planted on the eastern boundary of the
site to help minimise the noise disturbance.
Okay, Councillor Matthews.
Thank you, if the officer could leave that on, I just wanted to follow on from my point,
because it illustrates it quite well there.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:51:24
I appreciate the comments around the height of it and potential impact that had, but I
illustrates quite well actually how far it is back from the boundary of the gardens.
And I think actually, if there was more work that could be done in terms of screening,
planting, additional condition in terms of planting and hedging, that would be really
beneficial.
I think we do need to be careful with the conditions that are being discussed this evening.
If we get to the point where we're altering times when the one we approved two weeks ago
Two months ago at the end of the road is a different time.
We're completely exposing ourselves, which is crazy.
We actually had an interesting discussion at the last plans meeting around the impact
on condensing the times and actually funnelling all the vehicle movements at the busiest time
of the road.
I don't know if all members know the road quite as well as some of us do as ward members,
but that road is absolutely so -so.
one of the busiest roads we've got in the district at peak times. So condensing times
and adding to that, I think would be a serious error. And I don't know if it would also bring
into question the validity of the traffic assessment because the traffic assessment
has obviously been carried out based on the hours that have been recommended from the
report. So I just think that's worth considering. But anything we can do in terms of hedging
trees and acoustic barrier to reduce noise and as I said before critically at
the construction phase as well is going to be a really positive thing.
Thank you Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I share some of
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:53:10
the concerns around this site and I accept there is very few reasons to
actually refuse it but being a councillor for Royden and Nasing I understand the
pressure that comes from these type of developments and particularly around HGVs and heavy noise
going around and about. Members have come up with a number of suggestions around different
conditions that could be brought into play this evening and they're quite complex conditions
as well. You know, higher sound screening and everything Cal's been thought about and
of course what Cal's, the Matthews has just raised issues around the road and whether
and not the highways would see things differently if other particular sites were taken into
account. The officer himself said that we have to be careful with conditions to make
sure that we don't over complicate them or have too many conditions that are not favourable.
While we are making a decision on this application this evening, why are we not deferring it
until we actually get the conditions right? Because it sounds to me like members are in
a difficult place.
This is an application.
There are no major reasons for refusal
because of what it currently is.
And there are currently lorry movements around it.
But if we're doing that,
let's make sure we get the conditions right
for the residents of the area.
Because that's first and foremost.
And I think that's what my colleagues
who know the locality best are actually saying.
I think that's what Councillor Matthews has just said
with more information on the highways impact
and what Councillor Heavors said earlier on.
I think we have to think this through very, very carefully.
There are pieces here that don't fit together.
Let's make sure we get the jigsaw complete.
Thank you very much indeed.
Council Church.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:54:58
I share the residents concerns
and I think that enhancing the tree planting
and hedge planting on the immediate eastern boundary
Cllr Bob Church - 0:55:10
to the houses would be helpful,
more helpful probably being a horticulturalist myself, more helpful than a four metre blot
on the landscape that they'd have to look onto and that may impact on the wildlife as
well. So I would rather see some enhancement, further enhancement on the planting, deepen
the depth of the evergreen planting that's there. I can advise on the trees if you wish
and that will greatly enhance any noise reduction.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Members, the...
Just a quick question.
Do you want to speak?
I think Councillor Lee wants to speak.
Oh, sorry.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:55:50
Councillor Lee.
I'm a bit confused now,
I'm confused about the...
Microphone.
Microphone, please.
Sorry.
I'm a bit confused about the opening hours,
because the existing opening hours,
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:56:01
as far as I recall, was nine till five.
and what was being proposed was for the construction period is going to be 8
till 6 and then thereafter 7 till 8, 6 days a week and that to me is more
disruptive because you're bound to hear some noise that to me is more
disruptive to... Yeah I take your point if we move on to a vote obviously we would
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:56:33
vote for any changes in the conditions and seek advice before we take a vote on any change
of conditions. Just seeing generally how the land lies, there has been, Councillor Lee
is waiting very patiently to speak, but there has been a suggestion that perhaps this should
be deferred in order to get these really crucial conditions right to make sure that the impact
is as fully mitigated as possible.
So I haven't forgotten that you have your suggestion.
I'm just waiting for the right time to bring it.
Okay, Councillor Lee.
Cllr Jeane Lea - 0:57:06
Thank you, Chairman.
Most of the things I was going to say have been said,
but we did go to the site visit and listening to it all,
I don't think the new buildings are going to be hardly
any higher than that main building that's there.
And I understood that the buildings were going to be quite a way back,
so they're quite a long way from where the houses are,
and I certainly agree with a lot more trees and bushes and things,
because that's what cuts the noise down.
But my example of garden centres is that they're so busy,
I'm a person that's in and out of them all the time.
So I would have thought there's far more people in and out at a garden centre,
And as we saw the HDVs in and out while we were there,
which the ones for the freezer stuff are quite noisy
because they're going, but these weren't freezer lorries.
So they're no really not any, well,
I don't think they're any louder
than some of these modern cars that are like,
well, I wouldn't like to say what some of them are like.
So I would actually be thinking of maybe
on what council Whitbread said,
maybe deferring and getting all the conditions right
because I don't really agree with the times being cut shorter
because one, we don't know what the businesses are
and if you're going to restrict the businesses,
they're not going to survive.
The whole idea is their business is to give people jobs
and yes, I can see the residents side of it as well
but then on the other hand, I've got like seven working age grandchildren
that would probably be very happy for a job.
So, you know, there's two sides to it.
But I do think maybe the deferring it is a possibility
that I would be supporting.
Okay.
Okay.
Members, I am mindful of,
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:58:56
I think we are getting to the point
where it is our concern over the actual conditions.
Within the context of this meeting,
I'm not sure that we can actually,
it's going to be an awful lot of backwards and forwards.
Have I got an official proposal that we do defer this item
so that conditions can be finalised
and further information sought.
Seems like I've got a proposer and a seconder, thank you.
Members, we then do have a proposal
that this item is deferred in order
for the detailed conditions to be
more thoroughly investigated and as much mitigation
to any impact put in place through those conditions.
All those in favour of deferral for that reason, please show.
That's unanimous.
Thank you.
This item has been deferred.
Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 0:59:52
Right.
Members, I will pause very quickly for the public gallery to empty those people who would
like to leave.

7 EPF/0186/26 - 39 Amesbury Close, Epping, CM16 4JA

I'll make you go.
Okay, members, I'm very very mindful of the time so we are going to move on to item 7.
This is Act 39 Ainsbury Close in Epping.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:00:51
This is EPF 0186 stroke 25
and I'm going to pass straight over to Alex to present the application.
Sorry, I need some just pools.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:01:07
I think they're just going to be up there.
Yeah, I think.
No.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:01:54
Thank you, Alex.
Thanks.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chairman.
And this is the presentation for item 7 on your agenda, application reference EPF 0186 -26.
The site shown here in the red line on the screen lies within the defined settlement
of Epping.
It comprises part of a two -storey building accommodating Masonettes currently.
It's at the end of Ainsbury Close and the buildings have a simple elongated rectangular
form with a pitched roof and very similar in so far as they were all constructed at
the same time.
There's a footpath which runs along the frontages which provides pedestrian access to the garage
court, to the side and rear at Pelicourt.
So there that's to the south and sort of southwest on the site location plan.
So the photo there at the top is taken from Ainsbury Close.
The site there is on the left hand side and then the photo at the bottom is taken from
Pelicourt and the application site there is the Gable End that you can see.
The proposal would extend the building to the side and rear insofar as to the rear it
would have two box dormers within the roof scape.
These were arranged either side of an inset balcony.
The dormer would not be visible from within the Ainsbury Close Street scene, however it
would be visible from the Meddelles and Pelicourt Street scenes to the rear.
As stated in the committee report, within the appeal decision the Inspector found that
the design of the proposal was acceptable and concluded that proposed dormers would
appear as an appropriately scaled arrangement that would respect the form and appearance
of the host building.
It's important to note that the scheme in front of us tonight is the same as the appeal
scheme.
On this slide you can see the proposed layout of the site which includes the subdivision
of the existing amenity space at the rear and shows the internal floor plan layouts.
So the proposal creates two flats.
One of the flats proposed would be a two bedroom, three person unit and one would be a one bedroom,
two -person unit. No off -street parking is provided so it is a car -free scheme and
the local highway authority has raised no objection to this as the site is
considered to be in a sustainable location where there's good
accessibility to non -car modes which includes obviously Epping Tube station
and public bus services and there is secure cycle parking on site which is
cured by planning conditions.
So in conclusion, proposed development would provide two flats within a sustainable urban
location. The proposal would not be harmful to the character appearance of the host building
or the visual amenities of the local area. There would be no harmful overlooking or overshadowing
or loss of privacy. So the officer recommendation is for approval subject to the conditions
set out in the officer report and subject to completion of a legal agreement with
regards to the FSAC. Thank you. Thank you. We do have two speakers on this item.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:05:56
Firstly Sarah Stenshaus and over to you. Thank you very much indeed. Good evening.
Public Speaker - 1:06:03
Good evening. I live in Amesbury Close and it be directly opposite me where
things going because I'm on the other side of the alleyway.
So firstly, well, there's four issues for me,
two of which concern me personally,
and two others that concern everybody in Ainsbury Close.
So for me personally, I believe it will affect me
with light and with privacy,
because I've got three windows that face onto the alleyway,
bathroom, kitchen, and hallway.
So I do believe that would affect me.
It is an alleyway, so it's not that far from me
where the property is going to be.
So I've got no issue with the one
where they're building into the loft,
but I have got an issue with the two extra flats being built
because I believe, I mean, as it is,
there's a free for all for parking down there.
As we aim to be close,
was not built with garages or driveways.
Two people have got parking spaces there,
but other than that,
it's a free for all for a few parking spaces that there are.
So adding an extra two flats would be effectively
maybe another four vehicles. So I'd say good luck to them to try and park there. Already people
have been trying to sell properties there, have had comments from people looking at them saying
lovely flat, we really like it but won't consider it because of the parking situation around here.
So that's one issue. Also I believe from a safety point of view, it's an alleyway. There's a lot of
footfall along there, people going down to the station, going up to the town. Building
work going along there I think is dangerous for pedestrians walking along the alleyway,
frankly. So I would have a serious concern about that, about how the materials for the
building work would get to the actual property. So yes, that's really my concerns. So thank
you for listening to me.
Thank you very much indeed.
Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:08:00
The second speaker on this item is the applicant's agent, Ben Mayfield.
Good evening, Ben.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, members.
Public Speaker - 1:08:11
This project has been quite a time in gestation and we've worked carefully and considerably
with your Planning Officer colleagues.
Throughout that process, the Council's officers have supported it in terms of its development,
in terms of the principle of the additional housing
on the site.
It is a small residential cul -de -sac.
The arrangement of the properties are carefully set out
to minimise the impact on privacy and overlooking.
The properties are not perpendicular to each other.
The views are oblique and the separations is a normal,
appropriate separation for a residential setting.
The speaker before identified that her three windows
are to a bathroom, a hallway, and a side -facing kitchen
window.
There are only two additional windows
pointing in that direction.
One is the bedroom, one is the kitchen, one is at low level.
I believe your windows are two or at least not
habitable spaces.
So hopefully privacy wouldn't be significantly impacted upon.
Certainly daylight, sunlight wouldn't be impacted upon.
The separation distances are very reasonable.
It has also been reviewed, as Alex has mentioned, by the Planning and Spectra in the previous
scheme, and this is that same scheme.
The refusal to appear was arguably a technicality to do with the matters of Section 106.
It is presented again in that form.
So as the officers have previously identified that it's a scheme that they feel can be supported,
and the Planning Inspector to seconded that,
we'd commend it to the members to consider the same,
that it's a reasonable scheme, a sustainable scheme
and adds valuable additional small dwellings
in a sustainable area.
Thank you very much indeed, thank you.
If you'd just like to turn your microphone off,
that'd be lovely.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:10:03
Thank you very much indeed, no problem, thank you.
Right, I haven't got any board members on that one.
Right, members, before we open the discussion,
can we please just make sure that everybody is aware
of the planning inspectorate's comments.
It's been mentioned a couple of times
and identified on page 17 of your report, all right?
So to some extent, the actual building in principle,
we would not necessarily have any real justification
in refusing on the actual bulk or the size
or the impact of the actual building.
The planning inspector has stipulated they were happy
that there were no car parking provision.
So it would be very difficult for us to consider those
for reasons of refusal at this stage.
However, having said that, of course,
the discussion is over to you.
Thank you.
Councillor Lee.
Oh, sorry, do you want to come in?
Sorry, before we go to members, could I go to non -members?
Cllr Jeane Lea - 1:11:07
All right, my apologies.
Councillor Whitbread.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:11:09
Sorry, Chairman, just to make a non -pecuniary interest, I'm not a voting member this evening,
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:11:14
I'm here as an observer, but the objector is known to me, so I should just declare a
non -pecuniary interest.
Thank you for doing so, thank you.
Okay, Councillor Lee.
Thank you, Chairman.
I've just got a question.
Cllr Jeane Lea - 1:11:27
I thought when it came back, if it was on appeal, something had to have changed, but
the actual building, as far as I can see, nothing's changed.
All right, there's a 106 agreement, but I don't understand how it can come back with
no changes because in an old councillor I always thought it had to have a change. Can
you help? I'm going to pass you straight to Alex because yes he can. Oh no, sorry.
I'm just coming in on that one. The decision of the inspector was refused just purely on
Rob Walker - 1:11:53
the basis that there wasn't a section 106 agreement so I think a section 106 agreement
had been submitted but it wasn't signed and dated so it didn't secure the obligations
or buy in the land. So subject to there being a section 106 agreement had there been a section
1A6 agreement and the inspector would have granted planning permission.
Thank you chair. I've read the report and I've heard everything that's said I can find
Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:12:20
no planning reason to refuse this. I think we could go straight to the vote if nobody's
got anything else to say. Thank you. I think I do have one member who has got some. It's
Cllr Jeane Lea - 1:12:32
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:12:34
Councillor Dadd. Thank you chairman. Well I have got some reasons why we could refuse
it. Looking first of all at the appeal decision on page three of the actual
appeal report under other matters, section 17, it says I note the concerns
raised regarding the lack of proposed parking among other matters. The council
did not raise concerns and neither did the highways authority. Without
substantive evidence to the contrary I can see no reason to disagree. That
implies that if there was substantive evidence, then it could be refused. And I want to put
forward that that is certainly the case. In 2024, ECC brought out new parking standards
and a map as well showing what areas you are in, the connectivity levels, and as far as
I can tell Epping is moderate or good
and reading the parking guidance
for C3 residential dwellings,
even if it was high connectivity with one bedroom,
it says one minimum in highly connected locations
plus 0 .25 unallocated visitor.
and for two bedrooms, one plus 0 .25 unallocated visitor.
If it was moderate, it would be the same for one,
but it would be two plus 0 .25 for unallocated visitor,
and of course, that is always rounded up.
So if you class it as high connectivity,
it would be three parking spaces,
and if it was for moderate,
it would be four parking spaces required.
Also in the parking standards,
it does say that in highly connective areas, it could be in circumstances lower levels
could be accepted with justification. I don't think there's any justification here. I take
issue with highways because I doubt they've actually come to see it. We went on the site
visit, I asked for a detour, and at about 3 o 'clock in the afternoon, when most people
are working, that part of the close, you had people blocking the turning area and I can
imagine that people would also block people's driveways and I think it's quite unreasonable
to expect in that area to have anything that is with no parking at all because there's
a lack of parking anywhere and in addition to that in the report or the conditions it
also says that they must relinquish the applying for parking permits. Now I'd like to ask why
can they not apply for parking permits and where would those parking permits be is one
question then I want to come back on something else if I may. Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:15:48
Alex Sadowsky - 1:15:51
So in response to the query about parking and justification.
Sorry, now what I asked for was in your report it said that they should
I can't remember the actual words but relinquish being able to apply for a
parking permit. And some places that don't have sufficient parking are able to have parking
permits in other places in the road, whether it's allocated on street parking, that sort
of thing. And that was definitely written down there as either a condition or something,
and I do not understand why that must apply is the first question.
I'm sorry, I should have asked you to take a look through your thoughts.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:16:44
I'm sorry.
Can I ask you a final point of reference?
Thank you.
My other points really was, they also, the cycle space doesn't look secure.
I have another couple of points as well.
The officer says it is the same one that went forward but I understand reading the applicant's
details, I printed it out and I can't find it, they have minor changes.
So in his design and access day,
but no, I beg your pardon, this is,
this might be from another people,
but it says dismissal appeal, minor changes include,
now correct me if I'm wrong,
but does this apply to this particular application
or the one that went to appeal?
Because it said set back the dorm at ease
by 300 millimetres in plan
to avoid vertical alignment with the first floor wall below,
move the northwest most dormer cheek,
300 mills to the loft plan
and reduce the size of the windows in dormers
to be similar to the windows in the existing building.
Could I please have clarification
if that refers to the previous one?
Can we answer that one now?
I know the planning officer will be able to,
but I think there were some changes
prior to going to a few.
So whether it was for this particular one.
Let me pass you to the Planning Officer.
Thank you.
So in respect of the changes made to the scheme, the changes were made to the scheme between
the application being refused and the application going to appeal.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:18:32
So under the appeals procedure, which has changed since this appeal was made and determined,
you can amend the scheme as long as they're not substantive.
It depends how substantive the changes are.
The changes made were to reduce the size of the dormers and the changes made were to amend the fenestration in the scheme.
So the fenestration was amended to reflect the fenestration that's in the host building at the moment.
And the changes were also made to reduce the physical size of those dormers.
So to set them in and set them down to make them less visually bulky I suppose.
Those changes that were made at appeal were accepted by the Council and were accepted by the Inspector.
Those changes have been submitted as part of this application.
Those drawings have got that annotation on to show that they are the same as the ones that were considered at the appeal.
So for clarification, there are amendments to the previous one which was 115225?
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:19:52
Correct. Thank you. And then the other thing that I did spot about queering was the size
of the outdoor amenity space, which I understand is slightly less than it should be, and I
also would like clarification that it is minimum space standards. Thank you.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:20:12
So, the development meets the NDSS and in so far as the immunity space standards, we
consider that to be compliant as well.
Just obviously members are aware that since the appeal was determined, we also now engage
the tilted balance as well, which does also change our position slightly in so far as
the tilted balance is in relation to the five -year housing land supply.
So, when this application was originally considered in 2025, we had a five -year land supply position
where we had over six years' worth of housing.
We now do not have that position, so that changes the way we give planning policies.
and in this case this is a sustainable urban location and it's I suppose up to
up to us as decision makers to decide whether if there is we identify there to
be any policy conflicts the weight we give to each of those conflicts and the
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:21:31
Thank you Alex, yes you had already made your points and also in your statement.
I feel very strongly that if there's not enough parking it causes misery and it causes tensions between neighbours
and this area already has parking stress and it is quite clear that this policy is not being met
and I strongly suggest that we refuse it
on the grounds of insufficient parking
and not being compliant with Essex Parking Standards,
which as far as I understand,
has been adopted by the local plan at this stage.
Although I know there are plans
to actually do things separately otherwise.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think the planning officer just wants to come back
on that slightly.
Thank you.
I'd just like to clarify
Alex Sadowsky - 1:22:24
that the 2024 Essex parking standards are not adopted by EFDC. They're not a policy,
they're a guidance, so the amount of weight we give to them is different and insofar as
the exceptional circumstances I suppose that we consider is that this location is close
to a tube station and Epping is served by public transport and has shops, services and
facilities. So we consider that yes, there is zero, it's a car free development, but
this is for two flats, one being a one bed, one being a two bed. So actually the scale
of the development itself, we don't consider to generate that potential. Also the park,
the streets around there are controlled by parking restrictions so you would need to apply for a
parking permit that goes through the North Essex Parking Partnership which are obviously separate
to us and I don't offhand know how it works but it may be that if you're a new resident you don't
get a permit I don't know that I might be misquoting them but generally speaking they would
future applicants would need to make applications separately to net outside of this process.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:23:45
Can I just briefly say that the other mayors nets don't have parking either so there's already stress there.
Just because we have guidance that this is what we take, obviously on the neighbourhood plan is a must.
It does comply with it. But I still think it's very strong extenuating circumstances. Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Lee.
Thank you, chairman.
Cllr Jeane Lea - 1:24:07
Well, I wouldn't go buy a flat that didn't have parking.
So why would anyone, when there's no parking,
they're going by flat and live there?
You don't need it.
In Waltham Abbey, it's different
because we've got no bus service, we've got nothing.
And when the planning things come through us
in Waltham Abbey, we're told, oh no, no, no,
you don't have to supply parking in a town,
which in Epping, I can understand
because you've got the tube,
you've got everything and you've got shops.
But in Waltham Abbey, it's 22 pounds
just to get to the hospital.
We do have to remember this is one of the most
sustainable locations that we've seen.
I just think that, I wouldn't object to the flats
being built quite simply because they know
there's no parking there, so that's down to them.
They either go there without cars or don't go there.
Okay, right, members, any further comments?
Oh, sorry, Councillor Coughlin.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:25:00
Councillor Shroof wants to come in.
Oh sorry.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:25:04
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:25:06
I did initially but there's nothing left to discuss I don't think.
Cllr Razia Sharif - 1:25:08
This is such a simple application I'm sorry there's nothing else left.
Thank you.
I think Councillor Coughlin.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:25:13
I've overcome my confusion it's just the dates are a bit odd in the planning application.
Oh that's ok.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:25:16
Right ok.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:25:19
Members we do need to move this onto a vote.
I haven't heard an official proposal I don't think of.
You were suggesting I know but you didn't propose anything.
I don't think so.
Well, could I, should I, I think given the,
given the discussion we've had,
it's best to go to the vote first
and then I can always come back to you if appropriate.
Is that okay?
Members, the recommendation before us
is to grant planning permission with the conditions
and subject to the legal section 106 agreement.
All those in favour of granting, please show.
With that one is six agreement.
I think that's seven.
All those against?
That's two.
And that's no abstentions? No abstentions.
Okay, so in that case that application has been granted. Thank you very much.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:26:18
Okay, we are staying with Alex for our next item which is EPF

9 EPF/1035/25 - 47 Hainault Road, Chigwell, IG7 5DQ

F1035 stroke 25 of 47 Haynault Road, Chigwell.
And I'll pass you straight over to Alex for his report.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:26:38
Thank you, Chairman.
In front of us is the presentation for item 9 on the agenda, which is application reference
EPF slash 1035 slash 25.
Number 47, Haynaught Road is within the defined settlement of Chigwell.
It's a part one and a half, part two storey detached four bedroom house.
It's on the western side of Haynaught Road.
You can see that it's outlined in red on the slide and that's the photo taken directly
opposite it at the moment.
Either side of the site are residential properties and there is a golf course to the rear.
A public footpath runs along the site's southern boundary and you can see that there where
the tree is on the left -hand side of that photo.
It's in a rectangular -shaped plot with a large front driveway with space for at least four
vehicles and it has a privately enclosed garden to the rear.
So the proposal in front of us is for the change of use of the existing premises from
a dwelling which is C3, so a residential care home which is C2.
It's for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
There are no physical changes to the existing floor plan or the existing elevations of the
dwelling.
As stated within the officer report, the care home would be Ofsted regulated for four children.
And that is the maximum.
The ground floor snug would become a staff room, stroke bedroom for use by staff members
who are on duty through the night.
In total, there would be six staff on a rota with a minimum of three permanent staff and
a minimum of one member of staff during the day and two at night.
Officers consider that the proposed use would be very similar to that of a C3 dwelling house.
Daily patterns of movement to and from the building would not be any greater in number
which might lead to traffic, parking or other disturbance or amenity noise that
you'd expect from a normal family home of this size.
So as set out in the officer report, in conclusion the proposed change of use
would not be harmful to the residential character appearance of this street or
the visual amenities of the local area. The proposed development would be
managed by Ofsted and the maximum number of children as stated within the report and within
this presentation is secured by condition.
The front of the site is hard surfaced and will provide sufficient space for vehicles
to park associated with the use and the change of use will not result in any significant
net increase in traffic through the FSAC.
So on this basis the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
Thank you.
Thank you. We do have one speaker this evening on this item. It's an objector Smita Dhol.
Good evening.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:30:06
Public Speaker - 1:30:11
Good evening. My name is Smita and I'm here representing many of the neighbouring community
who emphatically object to this proposal. In June 2025, Chigwel Parish Council issued
a robust objection to this proposal. We are appalled that the case officer has disregarded
our statutory status and recommended approval. We are here today to state in the strongest
possible terms that the officer's report is a fundamental misrepresentation of the community's
position. It's not just brief, it is a sanitised dismissal of a community under threat and
a substantial body of evidence. By relying on weak subjective phrasing such as not considered
to give rise to harm, the officer has substituted rigorous planning analysis with personal opinion.
This report actively suppresses material planning considerations, most notably the impact on the mental health and well -being of current residents.
Under the National Planning Policy Framework, developments must create healthy and safe places.
The persistent anxiety caused by this application is not perceived harm. It is a documented material
reality that this report ignores.
Most critically, the officer's opinion directly contradicts evidence
provided by reputable local GPs who are professionals with first -hand knowledge
of our local infrastructure. To prefer an officer's assumption over the evidence
based testimony of medical professionals is a clear and unacceptable error in the
planning process. Furthermore we must address the safeguarding and privacy
rights of the families surrounding this property. I myself live right next door
and the property overlooks directly into my garden where my grandchildren often
play. This is a peaceful close -knit residential community introducing a
revolving door of four residents with complex emotional and behaviour
difficulties into an environment ill -equipped to support them creates a
two -way safeguarding risk and lack of community cohesion. It threatens the
privacy and security of existing families particularly as I said of those
with young children and the elderly while placing vulnerable new residents
in a setting where they cannot be safely integrated.
We asked the Committee, why are the considerations of potential future residents being prioritised
over the fundamental rights and safety of the current close -knit community?
Our opposition is reinforced by the applicant's deeply concerning track record.
First -hand knowledge from their other operations reveals a pattern of high -frequency police
attendance, drug use and serious anti -social behaviour.
We cannot allow such detrimental management to destroy our residential amenity.
This facility will compromise security, escalate noise and fundamentally alter the character of this area.
The evidence of harm to our safety, our services and our mental wellbeing is overwhelming.
We urge you to look past this hollow misleading report, take the substantive objections of Chigal Parish Council and our residents seriously
and reject the application based on the undeniable evidence of harm.
Finally, I'd like to say thank you to Chigwell Parish Council
for understanding the negative impact this application has on our community
and for rejecting the proposal.
Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.
Thank you.
We have no other speakers on this item.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:33:41
Before I hand it to, there's no other members who want to speak on...
Oh, sorry. Councillor Morgan.
How could I forget? So sorry.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:33:48
Like Tom says, you're my favourite councillor for letting me talk as well.
So last June, as we've just heard, Chiggleprash Council opposed this development to go from a C3 dwelling to a C2 residential care home.
Since then I've had lots of residents, some here this evening, speak to me and again today about their concerns with this development.
This application is detrimental and not protecting the character of this
residential road and surrounding area of Grange Hill as well as Chiggle Village
because it backs on to Chiggle Village alike. Under the NPPF this application
will be harmful to residential amenity and policies require developments not to
adversely affect the living conditions of neighbours through noise, increased
comings and goings, shift changes and external activities. On highway safety and parking
there is insufficient parking for staff, visitors, emergency vehicles and under the, I believe
it's the DM17, no turning space for cars and access is an issue as it's on a horrendous
T junction which we saw earlier, they showed you a picture and that's the T junction with
Chase and Haynault Road. There's been lots of accidents occur there recently and there's
also a huge speeding problem. It's a 30 -mile -an -hour zone and regularly we have people exceed 40,
50 miles an hour along there. That actually isn't giving a care of duty to our children
that we're looking to put in this facility. We know that they have severe behaviour and
emotional needs, they don't have dolls, a deprivation of liberty, so they will be
allowed to come and go and we're looking to put them there onto a road where
people speeding at 40 -50 miles an hour, that's just in my view not acceptable.
Sorry I've been writing this, I thought I was speaking to people again today as
well. So they do exceed. Also we have a huge duty of care on this fast road and it's not,
we're just not showing that if we're allowing a care home to be there for children to say
yes you can step out straight onto a main road. What are we saying for our children
and youth in our area? It appears that we really haven't demonstrated a need for this
in our local area either.
And it's affecting the living conditions
of the surrounding neighbours.
This building does have a side window.
We have heard that there's overlooking
and I did go and double cheque again today
and it does have a side window
that at present isn't being used.
It has a blind that's permanently down,
but it can look straight out into the neighbour's garden
and actually you can see part of their lounge.
So you can see people in there
and there are children next door,
young children from toddlers, from zero up to three.
That's not acceptable.
And it's affecting their living conditions,
their loss of privacy.
And also the residents feel that this application
would be detrimental not only to their mental health,
but their well -being as well.
And it's not just the immediate neighbours,
It is the surrounding people in the Chase, Haynault Road, right the way up the area.
I just want to say thank you to the committee for listening to me.
And I'm sorry, I was trying to write it as people were telling me today as well.
Thank you very much.
It is something that we really do need to think of.
Not only the duty of care for the people going in there, but also the duty of care for the
mental health and wellbeing of our residents locally.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Right, members, I will open it up for discussion,
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:37:40
but before we do, can we please be aware
that we need to keep our discussions
within the planning merits of the case?
We also have to be very aware that the actual,
the unit itself will be highly controlled by Ofsted
and various safeguarding policies.
So if we can keep to the planning merits,
it will help tremendously, okay?
Cllr Razia Sharif - 1:38:12
Councillor Sharif then Councillor Whiskin. Thank you chair whilst I understand the
objectors concerns and Councillor Morgan's concerns last month we had a
very similar application in though to moist and again similar concerns but
there was no planning policy to refuse the application and I think that's where
I am with this today thank you thank you Councillor Whiskin. Thank you
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:38:40
I've got several points. I know this area well having been brought up in that area.
In fact I looked at the house 20 odd years ago to purchase it. I have concerns regarding
the safety and enclosure of that property at the rear. Most of the gardens along that
part of Hainault Road actually open straight onto the golf course. So if there are safety
issues with the youngsters involved who have behavioural difficulties. Is it appropriate
that that is an open area, effectively straight out to the back? I have issues about the parking,
the nature and having had a look at the website of the people who are actually making this
proposal, there would be a substantial increase in traffic. I think there's also the issue
that if there are youngsters who require perhaps carers with them or transported to school,
will there be minibusses going in and out? These questions cross my mind. I think we
have to be careful about ignoring some of those issues perhaps. Maybe Ofsted would cover
them. Also I think given the the number of staff there I think there's also the
issue about parking and how that would in fact in fact impact them. I think the
character issue on the neighbourhood is important to consider. It would change
the nature of the the dwelling and there has to be strong considerations about
noise impacts if that was to be approved. I think that needs perhaps a little bit more
work, because unfortunately with some youngsters with these difficulties, noise becomes an
issue. And if you're talking about multiple youngsters, this is a strong issue for the
neighbours. Thank you.
Thank you. I think we – I'll pass you to the planning
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:40:48
officers in a minute – but I think we have to be mindful of what vehicle movements might
be there just as a normal family dwelling. It might well be that a child within a family
required transport to school because they had special reasons. I know it's four children
but you could have a family with three or four children, one of whom required a minibus
to school. So I think we have to be careful that this isn't over and above something that
could always be, that could occur in a normal family residence. Very quickly then I do want
to pass it to the family.
The point is if they're of differing ages,
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:41:20
they may go to differing schools.
So that would increase the traffic.
Right.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:41:26
Good.
Sorry.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Jack.
If I can just come in on a few points, just on highway impacts.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:41:34
The MPPF stipulates that in order
to refuse a planning application for highway impacts,
the impacts, the cumulative impacts following mitigation
would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future
scenarios. So I just bring that to your attention. I would just like to follow in the comment
from Councillor Sharif as well about the planning policy and decisions. I do just draw members'
attention that I am aware of court judgements as well as planning and spectrum decisions
where development has been allowed, where there's been a change of use from C3 to C2
without the need for planning permission. You only require planning permission if there's
material change of use.
Now here the applicant has applied for planning permission.
And so in order for there to refuse it,
you'd have to obviously have material planning grounds
to refuse it and they would have to outweigh
the benefits arising from the scheme
and you need to take into account paragraph 11D
of the MPPF and the tilted balance,
which was touched upon in the previous application.
Thank you.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:42:44
Councillor Whitbread and I'll come to Councillor Dadd. Thank you chairman and I
really appreciate what a sensitive application this one is and it's never
easy when you're talking about this type of unit in a residential setting but I
think a way to a degree from the planning issues is the demand for
children's services and different types of children's services which you
certainly see from a County Council level. My only question on this
application this evening, and I know it's a difficult one,
my key question would be, within the report under residential
amenity, you talk about this accommodation being available to
the fungal section of the Epping Forest community,
not the Epping community.
I would like to see that condition.
This is a commercial entity.
I would like to see that condition in some way,
because there is a really high demand for children's services
within our locality.
And if this application is going ahead,
we should be looking to the interest of our area particularly in the future when we become a unitary authority.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:43:48
Okay, can I just get the officers to actually answer that because I know that that has already been considered I think.
So thank you councillor.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:43:55
So obviously for a condition to be attached to a planning permission as we've stated earlier this evening it needs to meet six tests.
we don't consider that that would necessarily meet,
we don't consider that necessarily to be reasonable.
Therefore, it wouldn't meet all of the six tests required
in the MPPF.
So I understand the rationale behind it,
but obviously if this was to become a children's care home,
the offset and social services and the other bodies involved
would identify the children that would be best suited
for that facility.
and it may be that they're within the Epping district, it may be that they're
within neighbouring districts without knowing the you know the local need
specifically obviously Epping has a requirement to provide care homes and as
you say this type of facility has a growing need but we can't
we don't as officers we don't consider that would meet the test.
Do you come back, Councillor?
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:44:59
Thank you, Chairman, because I think this is something that we're going to have to look at more and more in the future.
And we do need to look at our own local need and demand for these type of facilities.
And probably not being a member of your committee, Chairman, and someone who comes in occasionally and listens to the arguments and tries to add my own logic to them.
I don't understand how that works with the six tests, if I'm honest, because this is
a commercial endeavour, as we read from the report.
And whilst it's a commercial endeavour, I believe there is the demand within the Epping
Forest locality.
I think you have to look at the whole of Epping Forest, and therefore I would have thought
that our own, if we were to ask children's services
or adult social care, whichever, where the children fell,
I think they would be able to demonstrate a demand
for those places within Epping Forest.
If we can show that there is a demand,
then surely we meet the sixth test.
Councillor Dadd, you've been working patiently, thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:46:03
Thank you, well it's interesting
because Councillor Whitborough has brought up
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:46:07
the same point that I was going to raise.
I do think it's a very sensitive thing,
and I do think people fear the unknown.
But you're just as likely to get an unruly family with four
children, three or four children next door,
which you've got no control over.
I think I have looked at their website,
and I've looked at how careful they are on one -to -one.
And, I mean, we don't know if they've got complex needs.
We don't know that they are unruly and that sort of behaviour, but they are very much vulnerable
children and they need that extra care and that extra one -to -one that this particular
children's home does provide.
And what I would have liked to have seen was I know that there is a need in EFDC and in
Essex County Council, and it does say in some of their,
I don't know if it was design and access
or management plan I think it was,
that there are sometimes the need for children
to move away from their own locality,
and I thought in similar lines of Councillor Whitbread
that we should have a condition that the children,
and I thought I'd sent it to the case officer actually,
should come from EFDC as priority
or other authorities within the social services,
Essex County Council social services,
as a second priority.
But also, I think it's not necessarily appropriate
from London boroughs.
And the reason is that we should look at the needs
of our own vulnerable children to be met first.
And secondly, children from London boroughs
may have more difficulty in integrating
into a more rural location.
And if that could be looked at again as a condition, and if not, whether it could be
an informative.
And that way it might be done.
But I do sympathise with people living nearby, but having lived next door to a very unruly
family that you have no control over, at least if something is controlled and there is a
problem then you can actually contact the authorities and say we're not happy about
X, Y, Z. But these are vulnerable children we're looking at.
Yes, I can see your point and if there is a possibility of having that condition I think
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:48:45
in order to actually provide these facilities for children in our own area first and foremost
in the wider Essex County Council area.
If that saves a child being separated from a family unit
any further than they have to be,
I think that would be absolutely beneficial.
It's just whether it can be done.
Thank you, Chair.
I've heard the comments made,
and I appreciate the local need in the area.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:49:11
I do agree with the officer
Rob Walker - 1:49:13
that I don't believe a condition would meet the MPPF tests,
and if it was applied could obviously be subsequently appealed and withdrawn.
As far as I'm aware, I'm not aware of any policy which requires that any children at
home have to offer priority to the local area.
And I would just add that I think a condition which excluded a specific class of people
based on geography would definitely fail the test.
So I wouldn't endorse that approach.
I think members have to bear in mind is with regard to the MPBF tests, if this condition
wasn't applied, would they refuse planning permission?
And if the answer to that is no, they would still grant planning permission and I think
the tests aren't met.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:50:02
Can you answer whether it can be an informative then please?
Rob Walker - 1:50:08
It's slightly differently worded, so it's not prejudiced against people, but making
priority tools.
It would depend on the language of the informative.
It's not binding on the applicant.
So from that perspective, a wording which would encourage them to engage with Epping's
Children's Services to offer them priority.
Yes.
I think that could be acceptable.
Yes, Councillor Craig.
Thank you, Joanna.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:50:38
Again, it comes along my queries,
and I'll make sure I'm saying,
have we actually spoken to social care and ethics,
the CEQA of memory is involved,
and why would we not do that?
Whereas, for instance, with regards to most applications,
or I don't get larger applications,
students be students of the health authority,
the single -member's demand for Section 106.
Why wouldn't we do it here?
I think we're on the plane with the demand for children's
services within our locality, and I take the role of the
library signature as well.
And what we're doing here is we could be agreeing on an
application this evening for a very, very good reason,
But it would end up in for the use of a London borough and not
for the benefit of Essex County Council or Epping Forest where
we have a high demand for children's services.
You know, I really think we should have at least explored
whether or not we could put a condition together on that
basis before we're looking at this application.
Whether or not it could be done, and I take on board the officer's
professional comments and everything else,
but surely we should be doing everything we could
to make sure that's achieved.
And if we haven't done everything we could
to make sure that's achieved,
would it not be worth deferring to the next meeting
of plans B to get the actual condition work through?
Thank you.
Can I just let Councillor Morgan come back in,
then straight back to you Councillor Lee.
Actually, Councillor Ritter said exactly
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:52:19
what I wanted to say, and I'm in total agreement with him.
And as for the NPPF test,
I think we need to go back and have a look at it.
And we do need to look at our social care
and speak to them because we have a high demand
for this in our area,
but why are we gonna give it to the London boroughs?
I'm not saying we are going to,
but there's a possibility we don't necessarily are, but -
It might well be that they are -
They might be, but I think we should put a conditioning
and we should definitely be looking at this
and exploring it before we go any further.
Thank you.
And thank you, Councillor Whitford for being here
to highlight this.
Thank you.
Councillor Lee, thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:52:59
Cllr Jeane Lea - 1:53:00
Yeah, I think it's something we need to seriously look at.
I haven't got, I have a grandchild with Aspergers,
which is, we manage it, which is fine.
But if I was a parent that a child needed to go
in one of these places, I would want it,
that I would be able to visit.
It would be no good for me living here
that the child was gonna be sent to Timbuktu
or somewhere where I could possibly only manage to get once a month.
So I think you've got to look at it both sides.
The parent with this child has got to go because there's lots of children that have to have
special care.
I mean, when I was chairman, I went round to some of these places and it's heartbreaking.
So we've got to look at both sides of it.
It's something that we must investigate because I really do think these places are a necessity
and yes, they need to be where they're not stuck miles and miles away, like in the old
days people were stuck miles away when there was anything wrong. But it's got to be local
people. There must be some way we can go forward and look into this without making a decision
because these places are a necessity. But I think somehow there must be something we
can do that is within a certain distance for both sides.
in lies our problem in that we are we're being advised that currently there
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:54:20
isn't anything we can do to enable that condition to be to put in place and
they're both looking at me and shaking their heads.
Councillor Williamson. Thank you chair. I applaud all of the sentiments in the
Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:54:37
room this evening and understand all of them but we do a parade of shots we
don't say to the butcher you can only sell to Ebbing Forest residents.
We, it's a commercial enterprise.
If, if there was a way to condition it, I'd be quite happy to go down that route.
But all the nods and shakes we're getting from the, from behind me are suggesting
that it would be an unreasonable restriction on the,
the use of the the, the applicant's building.
None of us choose our neighbours.
but if my neighbours decide to sell,
I can't decide who buys the house.
The only way you can control your neighbours
if you own the house next door as well.
We're going round and round in circles
and I totally understand the sentiments,
but I think under planning law,
that there's not an informative,
we have informative on parish housing and things.
I think it's probably the way forward.
Thank you.
Councillor Dadd.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:55:39
Can I propose then that we have an informative to the effect that where possible that they
discuss things with Essex County Council social services and where possible put children from
EFDC or Essex as priority.
That sounds, that sounds enmity sensible to me.
Members, all those in favour,
we've got somebody, we've got Councillor Zad
who proposed that informative is included.
And Councillor Williamson to second it.
All those in favour of that informative
being included in the decision?
That is six, Councillor. All those against?
And abstentions? To Councillor.
Lovely. So going forward to the vote, that informative
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:56:47
will be included in any decision. Members, the recommendation is to grant planning
permission with conditions all those in favour of granting please show so that's
seven cancer and against to cancer planning permission is granted okay
Cllr Sue Jones - 1:57:13
thank you members right we are moving on now to the final item on tonight's
agenda. This is EPF 2587 stroke 23. This is the land to south, sorry, this is the land

10 EPF/2587/23 - Land to South of Vicarage Lane, North Weald Bassett, Epping, CM16

to the south of Vicarage Lane, North Wild Bassett. And I am going to pass you over to
Nick Finney for his report. He's just setting up, bear with us for two minutes.
Nick Finney - 1:58:13
This is the application reference 258723 Northfield Bassett.
I'm going to run through some of the context and background around the application and
describe the contents of the application and some of the key issues around it.
So this is one of the major allocated sites within the adopted local plan.
Forms part of the Northwield Bassett master plan area.
That's shown on the drawing on the screen.
That's an extract from the local plan proposals map.
The site in question today is site allocation NWB .R3.
And this site allocation is covered by the local plan
specific policy P6.
There's a drawing there that shows a kind of closer view of
that allocation also.
Just to clarify that the master plan area is made up of five
separate site allocations, which are under the control
of different owners and site promoters.
The application today, as I said, regards the R3 site,
which is the orange outline site on this plan,
and is the larger part of the master plan area.
So, as per the local plan requirements, a strategic master plan framework was developed
for the site between the current applicant and EFDC and that was subject to an extensive
public consultation and engagement process and was subsequently endorsed by EFDC at a
cabinet meeting in March 2024.
So that forms an important material consideration
for this application.
That is a detailed master plan document,
and this application has been brought forward
in compliance and alignment with that master plan.
There's an extract on the screen
of the principal master plan framework plan.
And that master plan set the key parameters
of the development, which included a social heart at the centre of the master plan, which
connected to the existing school memorial playing fields in Queens Hall in that location.
It also identified a suitable alternative natural green space in the south -west corner
of the site, which provides a buffer to the existing sewage treatment works in that location.
It also provided a central park land
which provided an offset from an existing
strategic gas main in that location.
It set out the key, the road hierarchy
for the master plan as a whole
and how the site would be accessed.
Identified a retail centre in the north of the site
and it identified land for a school
in the south of the site which is a policy requirement
of the local plan.
So as identified, an application has come forward for the majority of the master plan
from the current applicant and that covers that central area.
The red line extends slightly to the north to allow for highway works outside the master
plan area.
The same red plan but on an aerial photo just to assist orientation of the site.
And this is the description of development which I'll just read out in full for clarity.
So it's an application for a hybrid planning permission which means it's made of two parts.
The first part is that it's seeking outline
planning permission with all matters reserved
except for the principal means of vehicle access.
And that's from two points.
One is via a new roundabout on the A414
and one is via a secondary access on Vicarage Lane West.
And that's for a mixed use scheme
comprising residential development,
reserve land for a primary school with its associated playing fields, mixed use development
including retail, early years or community uses, the associated green infrastructure
including public open space, formal and informal play and recreation areas, drainage infrastructure
and all other associated infrastructure for development of this scale, diversion and extinguishment
of public rights of way.
There are a number of public rights of way
which transect the master plan
and they are accounted for and maintained
but they are diverted or replaced
with other equal facilities throughout the master plans.
And then there is also a detailed element
to the application where permission is sought
for the primary access road,
the suitable alternative natural green space or SANG,
and the surface water attenuation infrastructure.
So this is just, this is an illustrative master plan
of the scheme as submitted.
As I said, it's split between outline elements
and detail elements.
So the outline elements will be subject
to future reserve matters applications
where the detailed design and architecture and layout
of the residential and commercial plots will come forward
for subsequent approval.
Another view of the same administrative master plan.
So first the detailed elements.
So as described and shown on the plan,
it comprises the central access road,
the access points to the highway,
the strategic drainage infrastructure,
the green blobs on the drawing are the
principle drainage sub ponds for development,
and then the hatched area in the southwest corner
is the sang.
So that's the highway scheme looping through the site
with the access roundabout shown
in the northeast corner. Drainage scheme, safeguarded drainage connexions and the primary
drainage infrastructure. There will also be localised drainage infrastructure that comes
forward of each phase of the development. And then the suitable alternative natural
the green space and just to clarify that's a local plan
requirement as part of the mitigation strategy
for Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation
which requires some of the major master plans
to provide equivalent recreation dog walking facilities
for the new community and this is the city's been provided.
It also, the applicant is also making enhancements
off the site to provide a larger circular walk linked to that which connects into the
existing flood meadow which Epping Forest manage and provides that longer walking route.
Equally it joins a number of existing public footpaths for even longer countryside walking
routes.
So the outline elements just to confirm, it's residential use.
The application is for up to 780 new homes.
That's in alignment with the overall master plan,
which is for approximately 110, sorry, 1 ,010 new homes.
So proportionally 780 is in accordance
with that master plan.
We've then got the other community and retail uses,
which have got defined floor spaces.
and then the primary school and early years facilities,
along with the green space.
The way the outline permission is granted
is there's a number of parameter plans
which set the parameters on which future reserve matters
will be based.
So this is the primary land use plan
which shows the areas allocated for residential development
in the browny colour, the yellow,
which is the land safeguarded for the primary school.
We've then got two purple areas,
which are for the community and retail facilities.
There's equally a access and movement parameter plan,
which sets the key access routes,
which will be delivered in any future scheme.
And that's primarily cycle and pedestrian routes
alongside the main road.
There'll obviously be further roads and footpaths
that come forward of each phase.
And then finally there's a density and a height plan
which provide that guidance on what is expected
in terms of site density and height.
It's worth noting that we're looking at two to three storey
as the maximum height across the master plan.
So that's the intent.
I'm just going to now run through, I'm not going to run through all the issues that are
addressed in the officer's report, but I'm just going to run through two key points that
have arisen.
So a primary issue that has delayed the application coming to committee for a significant period
has been the matter of the M11 Junction 7.
National Highways have put in place a holding objection
to the application on the basis that the scheme
would have a significant impact on Junction 7.
And that's in combination with a number of other
proposed schemes in the vicinity, including Latin Priory.
And I'm aware Latin Priory was refused at a recent committee
but national highways perspective,
it's still potentially a development that will come forward
in another form or via an appeal.
So in the absence of the mitigation measures,
it's considered there's severe impact on that junction.
And as an update from the officer's report,
a revised holding objection from national highways
has been received because the previous one had expired
And that has extended the life of that to the 15th of May 2026.
And the meaning of a holding objection is that they are putting that position out there
until they're satisfied that an agreed mitigation position has been reached.
That doesn't prevent us, prevent a decision being made today.
But it, because ultimately it would require the application to be referred to the Secretary
of State for Transport if it was gonna go contrary
to their advice, but in discussions that we've been having
with National Highways and Essex County Council,
there is an agreed mitigation scheme
that has now been reached and the applicant has agreed
to play their part in that with the delivery of the works
and to fund contributions as required.
National Highways wish to keep their objection in place
until the detailed legal terms of a Section 106 obligation
have been confirmed and that they've had sight of that.
But we believe that that can be resolved
through that process.
We've therefore on this point,
we've added it to the recommendation
that the recommendation is made subject to that point
being agreed by the Section 106.
And if that is not agreed,
it would need to return to committee.
And just to give some further context on that, it's too detailed for you to pick up the descriptions
but that's an illustration of the mitigation scheme that's been developed between National
Highways, the applicant and Essex County Council and it makes a series of changes to increase
capacity and that's to do with changing lights, widening junction points and there's also
a potential proposal for a cut through loop which would take, so this is the road exiting
Harlow and there's a potential cut through route to London Road to Epping so that cars
going from Harlow to Epping don't have to go around the whole junction and add to the
detailed to be done in due course on the delivery and design of that scheme. But transport authorities
are happy that that will mitigate the impact and that they have the right means to ask
for financial contributions from multiple applicants to put that mitigation scheme in
place. The second point I was going to touch on was
the heritage around St. Andrews Church,
which is located to the northwest of the master plan.
That's a grade two star listed church,
and we have had an objection from Historic England
on that point.
We have set out our reasoning
in the officer's report in detail,
but the issue of the church was considered
in the site allocation stage as the local plan was adopted.
And it was also identified and considered
during the master plan development as that was endorsed.
Key has been locating the spine road to maintain a view
of the church from the development
and also to provide a landscape offset from the church.
It's also the lowest density part of the master plan,
which allows for minimization of any blockage
to those views.
There's some illustrated material from the application
on the right about how that new gateway
to the development will sit with a view
of the church beyond.
We have also proposed as part of condition 5 on the requirement for a design code that
the design code should have special regard to that heritage setting in terms of the detailed
architecture and design of that phase of the master plan.
So I'm going to, there's quite a number of section 106 legal obligations as part of the
scheme.
I'm going to run through the headings of those items with some description.
So the applicant is, and the application has been made on the basis of a 40 % affordable
housing provision, which is the local plan requirement, and no viability argument has
been forwarded for a reduction on that figure.
Safeguarded land in the master plan,
land will be safeguarded in the master plan
for the delivery of the onsite retail provision
to meet those local needs with a marketing strategy
to be secured about how that is brought forward
and that it was brought forward at an early stage
in the development and not left to the end.
Equally, there are obligations related to community facilities on the site.
The applicant has been in discussion with the Queens Hall, which is adjacent to the
site and run by a trust in coordination with the parish council.
and the preferred approach for the master plan
is to enhance the existing Queens Hall
by investing in the facilities, extending the hall,
and therefore providing enhanced facility
for the existing community and the new community
that can all be accessed by all.
There is a fallback option if an agreement with the Queen
that's obviously a third party
outside the application boundary.
if an agreement can't be reached
with the trustees of the Queens Hall,
there is a fallback position
of providing a community centre on the site
and land and funding will be secured to deliver that.
Equally, there's improvement works
proposed to the memorial playing field,
which adjoins the Queens Hall,
which is to improve the sporting facilities
for the new and existing community.
Equally, there will be a fallback financial contribution position if those improvements
can't be made on that land.
There's a library contribution payable to Essex County Council.
We've consulted the Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board.
Their current strategy in relation to this development is
to enhance the existing Lyme's medical practise.
So that's their stated strategy and they've sought financial
contribution for that.
The applicant has proposed a health facility on the site
and identified land for that use.
As a result, we are in the hands of the ICB about how health care is delivered in the
vicinity.
So we have secured the financial contribution.
We've also are seeking to secure the land in the master plan as an option so that the
option remains open for the ICB to deliver that primary care facility on the site if
their current strategy changes.
But we don't have the power to enforce them to deliver the health services in a certain
way.
So they're noting their health care contribution of circa 1 .8 million.
As noted earlier, land is safeguarded for a primary school.
That will be a land option for the education authority, currently Essex County Council,
which will be a nil value land option, which can be taken up for approximately 10 years.
If that education need doesn't arise and Essex County Council don't take up that option,
the land will just revert to the applicant.
it wouldn't have a permission for an alternative use
and it would have to be subject
to another planning application
if the school use is not progressed.
There is also an early years in childcare contribution
of circa 1 .5 million.
The intent from Essex County Council
is that an early years facility would be provided
alongside the primary school on the same site.
There is an addition to the school land,
there's an education contribution of circa 5 .4 million
to fund the school, and also an offsite secondary education
contribution of circa 4 .3 million.
Given that the secondary provision will be offsite,
there is also a school transport contribution
of circa 900 ,000, and then also a SEN contribution
contribution of circa 600 ,000.
As mentioned earlier, there's the M11 Junction 7
improvement works and financial contribution.
There's an initial scheme of works which is expected
to be undertaken directly, direct delivery and discussion
with Essex County Council and in addition to that,
there's a payment of circa 1 .6 million
for the wider mitigation scheme as that's brought forward.
There's also improvements proposed
to the Talbot Public House roundabout,
which is to the northeast of the site,
where there's widening of approach arms
proposed by Essex County Council
to provide additional capacity at that roundabout.
There's a requirement to enter into highway agreements
to undertake all those related highway works
in the vicinity.
There is also an ask for feasibility study
into restricted access to Church Lane.
Church Lane is to the west of the application site
and has previously been considered by Essex County Council
for downgrading to access only.
and there'll be further feasibility of that in due course.
There's a public transport contribution
to support bus services in the vicinity
of circa 2 .1 million.
The application provides for bus services
to run through the site with bus stop locations identified.
The exact routing and bus services
that will provide the site will be subject
to further discussions in due course.
There's a travel plan obligations to provide
sustainable travel packs to new residents.
There's then other highway works to connect the development
into the existing north wheel to the south.
So to the south of the master plan,
there's no highway access, but there are a number
of connexion points to the existing community
and works are opposed to improve those points.
It's also worth noting immediately to the east
of this application is the other allocation, NWBR1,
and this application does safeguard access
to that master plan, that area, so that applicant
can bring forward that scheme
and use the strategic access point also.
So final page on the obligations.
Just noting the Epping Forest Special Area Conservation mitigation that's included.
As the site was allocated in the local plan, the development and impact on traffic was
already considered at the local plan stage, but the mitigations are still required.
So there's the payments to the SAM strategy
and the air quality mitigation strategy.
And then there's also securing the SANG onsite
and related circular walking route.
We will have open space and SANG management obligations
on the development to make sure public open space
is brought forward and managed in the right way.
And then finally we will have employment skills obligations to provide opportunities for training
skills as the development is brought forward over a number of years.
And we have our standard monitoring fees requirements for Section 106 agreements.
So in conclusion, as mentioned on a previous case, current time there's a presumption in
of sustainable development under paragraph 11D
of the national planning policy framework.
That's engaged as we're unable to demonstrate
a five -year housing land supply
so the tilted balance is engaged.
Consequently, planning permission should be granted
unless any adverse effects of doing so would be
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits
when assessed against the policies in the framework
as a whole or why there are specific policies
in the framework that protect areas or assets
of particular importance and provide a strong reason
for refusing the development.
The proposal is being brought forward in compliance
with the local plan site allocation under policy P6
and also is in alignment with the endorsed master plan
for North Wheel Bassett.
Proposal includes the delivery of 780 new homes
including a policy level compliant
affordable housing provision.
This is a significant component of the district's
housing delivery as set out in the local plan.
The proposal provides for significant areas
of public accessible open space
and other green infrastructure.
It provides for a range of community and retail facilities
for the new community.
A range of highway and sustainable transport measures
are proposed and a mitigation approach to increase capacity at M11 Junction 7 has been
agreed in principle with National Highways and Essex County Council and the lifting of
the National Highways holding objection will be subject to the final Section 106 terms
to be agreed.
The capacity constraints in the local sewage network that have been raised by Thames Water
have been noted in detail in the officer's report
and Thames Water are working,
have confirmed that they're working
to meet their statute duty to provide this capacity.
A suitable planning condition is proposed
to ensure that occupational phasing of the development
is suitably aligned with those capacity enhancements.
The development has been subject
to a habitat regulation assessment that is concluded
with the provision of the mitigation measures I've set out
and the sang wider walking routes,
that the proposed development will not have
an adverse effect on the integrity
of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation.
So the recommendation is to grant.
It's on the basis of completion of a legal agreement
under the term set out in the officer's reports.
And that this should be concluded within six months
of the resolution to grant if decided. Also in accordance with the planning conditions
as set out in the officer's report. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. We have a couple of speakers on this item. Firstly,
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:26:47
Sue De Luca representing North Wilde Parish Council and Sue's online.
Thank you, Chairman. Hello and thank you, members. North Ward Bassett has been allocated
a significant amount of development in the local plan, development that many residents
do not want and development which will undoubtedly change the way North Ward sits in the wider
area. North Ward Bassett Parish Council has been liaising with Vistri and previously with
countryside for at least the past six years, our interactions being primarily to influence
the design of this development to ensure it provides the best possible situation for both
current and future residents.
Throughout our interactions, the developer has worked collaboratively designing and altering
proposals based on the feedback given to them, not only by the parish council, but as a result
to the neighbourhood plan consultation process.
Given this is an allocated development site
in the local plan, and as a result of these conversations,
the parish council believes that what is being proposed
this evening provides a well -designed,
considerate and comprehensive development,
respecting the character of North Wield
and providing by way of a section 106 agreements mechanism
to create a social park for North World Village.
Whilst we cannot say all we want in three minutes,
we would however like to state that we wholeheartedly
disagree with the integrated care board suggestion
that nearly two million pounds in section 106 monies
for healthcare would be used to offsite improvements
to the Limes Medical Centre.
Once full development of the North World Bassett Master Plan takes place, the village would have over 3 ,100 homes,
enough to recognise NHS guidelines to warrant a GP health centre on site or in the village.
The local plan vision for North World Village states the needs of North World Bassett residents
will be met through improved health and community facilities, enabling it to be more self -sufficient.
As such, should permission be granted, a new condition should be imposed securing the $2
million investment to be used to provide healthcare facilities directly on the new site or directly
relating to a better provision of services at the Northwills Satellite Service. Healthcare
services should be delivered within Northwills itself. Thank you, Chairman and thank you
members.
Thank you. Our second speaker tonight is William Wood, the applicant's agent. Thank you very
much for sitting through the entire meeting this evening. Over to you Nick, thank you.
Public Speaker - 2:30:00
Good evening, I probably should clarify I'm not the agent, I am actually the applicant
and I do work for the history. Anyway, good evening and thank you. I could never be as
comprehensive as you Nick in the three minutes I've got but what I hope comes across is that
many years hard work gone into the proposals before you tonight and that's not just on
the application but the strategic master plan which precipitates it.
A core theme of the work we've done is we're trying to ensure that new development maintains
the feel of a village so that North Wield stays a village and that it integrates with
the existing village properly.
So that's what a large part of our work has been focused on.
Irrespective of what happens tonight, I want to take a moment to say thank you to the many
people who have given up their spare time, often at very antisocial times, just like
tonight perhaps, to help shape the scheme so it can meaningfully contribute to the village.
Every aspect of the proposal has been very carefully thought about and discussed in great
detail so that the local plan requirements are satisfied in a way that also maintains
that village feel, protects existing community assets and improves the range of local services
and green spaces available to all.
We've also worked, as you've heard, beyond our boundaries, particularly focusing on M11
Junction 7, but also the Memorial Plainfield and elsewhere.
I perhaps just want to quickly finish with just a couple of very basic stats about Vistree.
During 2025, Vistree delivered one in seven of the countries of all of our homes, one
in seven nationally.
So it's a very significant component.
And the second thing I want to pick up is on customer service or customer satisfaction.
So for the last six years now, this history has been raised a five -star
house builder based on the HPF customer satisfaction surveys. Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed. Right members before we open up a discussion
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:32:00
I'm turning to non committee members. Councillor Chris Whitbread I think you
indicated earlier. Yeah thank you Chairman and thank you for taking me earlier on.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 2:32:08
Obviously, Councillor Bromwich is here this evening as well.
It's good to hear that the history of engaged well with the parish council.
It gives me much more confidence in the application in the fact that the parish council have played
an active part along with residents in shaping what's come forward.
And I think that's important to recognise.
I do agree with the parish council.
Northfield will need its own medical facilities and I would hope that there will be some form
of amendment brought forward to the conditions there
this evening from the committee, because that is vital.
I think what we get to, and I'm sure Councillor Williamson
will now squirm in his seat when I say it,
but nobody loves the local plan.
No one loves the sites within the local plan,
but they were the sites that came forward for the local plan.
You can only deal with what you have.
The important thing now, of course, is whilst I accept
and everyone accepts, no site is perfect.
Everyone will have an objection to a site.
The most important thing is building the right place
for the future.
And I think that's key to this application and the other
application that comes forward.
And we have to not raise residents' expectations as to
what is not achievable.
Sites have limitations if they're going to be delivered.
And we've just heard that our five -year land supply is below
where it should be at the present time.
And some of that is because sites are very hard
to bring forward in the current conditions that we face.
We've found it ourselves with the sites
we've brought forward.
Cost have risen dramatically and it's hard
to bring anything forward that actually delivers.
The 40 % affordable housing is very important
to Epping Forest District Council.
We have a waiting list and we need to meet the needs
of people who want all different shapes
and types of houses.
I do think it's important that residents are
considered with this.
It will be a fundamental change to Northfield.
I used to live in the village when the Bassick
Greens development was built around both Close
and Hamden Close.
It changed the village completely at that time,
and this will be a fundamental change to the village.
So it's important that the space is there for a
future school.
It's important that the space is there for
community and for some form of retail at that end of the village. But generally
nobody will like anything coming forward from the local plan but it is a local
plan site, it is an application that has gone through a master planning process,
it is an application that has been done in consultation with the parish council
who always do first -class work in Northfield and do understand the needs
of their residents. So I think that's important to take forward. What we have
to be realistic of is what we can actually achieve here.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Councillor Bromwich.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Cllr Tom Bromwich - 2:35:07
I believe this is the last committee meeting
before of this term, so I just want
to say thank you very much for being what I think
is a commendable chair and standing up
for all of our rights to speak on all proposals.
So thank you.
So I've come along tonight not actually
to encourage members to stop any and all housing
on this site, but because yet again,
I'm staring at another hefty planning proposal
for a mass development in North Weald.
I recognise and respect that the local plan passed
by this council in 2024 is set.
There are many benefits to it to protect our area.
So I'm not fighting it.
I'm not trying to relitigate it.
And I also wanna commend Vistra's engagement
with the community and with our fantastic parish council
as Councillor Whitbread said, it hasn't gone unnoticed.
Our parish council clerk spoke incredibly well just earlier.
We all know that mass development proposals
are not an easy sell, and I see myself the chronic need
for more housing nationally and in our district.
780 houses on this land is, in my opinion, excessive,
but we can't leave this land as it is.
Something has to happen to it.
In the 1990s, the average price of a detached house in Northwild was £120 ,000.
A terrace house, perhaps one like Councillor Whitbread bought earlier, was somewhere in
the realm of £70 ,000.
Today the price for a house in the village is between £650 ,000 and £1 million.
A terrace house is more than £400 ,000.
This is an increase that is twice as fast as the growth of national inflation.
So I'm not opposed to housing on this site, but I wouldn't be doing my job well, I don't think,
if I didn't speak on behalf of the residents who are concerned that this will end Northwield's
village identity. With this development, I think Northwield village will grow by about 35%.
780 houses is equivalent to the total houses in Abridge, or like building Coopersale twice over.
I think Councillor Whitbread summed up these resident
concerns in this regard excellently.
On this proposal, I actually think that if it is delivered
as set out, it has a potential to be impressive
and good for our district.
And I'm certainly happy that we are getting some supporting
infrastructure to help deal with these new houses.
Just on a few points, so a 360 square metre medical centre
is something that will definitely interest residents.
But I can't feel at this stage risks being little more
than a ghost surgery.
We've spoken about the ICB.
I know we're not able to have influence on this
specific matter, but I am concerned that it isn't
specifically asking to build a surgery here in North Weald.
It wants 1 .3 million to potentially move a practise
in Epping to a hospital site.
And it feels a little bit like we're being promised.
We've had a kitchen installed in our new
extension, but the oven is being installed in the
it feels a little bit like that.
But I'm also happy that there is a provision
for a primary school.
This is really important.
However, again, we have the primary school provision.
We aren't being promised a school today,
we're being promised a 10 year window
for Essex County Council to decide
if they want to lay a single brick.
I do have a concern that for a decade,
this could just leave this area as just empty fenced off land
while hundreds of families move into the village.
I'm also concerned that the report leaves the door open
to scrap the new school entirely
and simply expand the existing St. Andrews Primary School.
I think this would be a traffic disaster
for the surrounding roads.
And additionally, I don't believe there is enough mitigation
for the traffic that nearly 800 houses will provide,
especially on roads that are already suffering
from parking issues such as School Green Lane,
Queen's Road and Beamish Close and suffering from their status as rat runs
such as Church Lane and Vicarage Lane. I think we need a cast iron commitment to
building a primary school not something that will be a nice to have if we ever
got around to it. On drainage Thames Water has said that the network does not
have the capacity for these flows. They don't expect to have treatment upgrades
ready until 2030. The proposed gramping condition to cap occupation at 100
homes until December 2029 is a temporary and minor fix in my opinion.
Residents on Queens Road and Oak piece specifically have already raised their concerns to me that
the system won't be able to cope with the new deluge of new surface water and foul waste.
On heritage, we are very lucky to have Grade 2 listed St Andrews Church from a community
perspective.
I really hope that by building houses here it might actually help swell the congregation
and might in fact result in us getting a full -time vicar, which I think would be great for North
Weald.
I do share the concerns by Historic England that this development will change the character
of the land and cause harm to its landmark role.
So I think this proposal must ensure that the two -storey height limits and visibility
corridors are solid requirements.
Finally, on transport, and I'll bang this drum until the cows come home, and I think
Councillor Dadd knows what I'm going to say, but if North Wield is going to get 800 houses,
why are we not working with local partners to help contribute towards a feasibility study
to help build a business case to reopen the Epping to Onga stretch of railway as a commuter
line to Epping?
I just don't understand why we're not having that conversation.
It just doesn't make sense, I don't think, especially if the railway wants to do this.
I think that for developments this size, transport choice matters.
Busses alone won't cut it.
I fear that without adequate transport consideration,
there risks of parking catastrophe and Epping
for those wanting to park up at the station
who live in North Wield.
So for many of these residents,
this proposal marks the beginning of the end
of the village status as North Wield.
I really hope that in the future,
other villages in our district will do as we have done
and accept our fair share of housing.
Quite frankly, I find it remarkable and bizarre
that villages in our area,
particularly those that may benefit from a fully functioning tube station and
direct line into London and a diverse high street seem to constantly object to
accepting a fraction of the scale of what we are seeing in North Weald. In my
opinion certain villages go on and on about wanting to keep their village a
village but all villages want to preserve their village feel. North Weald
is no exception but others need to share their burden of our district's
responsibility to house young people. How can young people possibly imagine owning
a home in our area if we don't all pull our weight.
The blocking whatever comes our way attitude, I think,
is demonstrated by some villages in our district.
It's effectively a statement to our young people
that local living is a luxury that they can't afford,
reserved for those who already live here
and who brought their homes for a fraction of the costs
they live in today.
Quite frankly, I find the heights of irony
to see certain areas go to war over being presented
with a fifth of the homes on scrappy bits of land,
while North Wales has been expected to absorb nearly 800
with just a weekend heritage railway and a row of eight shops. Something has to happen to this land,
we need to meet our housing responsibility, our targets and to give young people the choice to
stay in the wonderful village of North Weald and Epping Forest. Thank you. Thank you very much
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:42:50
indeed. Right members we're going to open it up for discussion. Members I am aware of the time,
I'm also aware of how many important aspects
there are to this application.
So I would just urge you, if we can try and avoid
repeating points that have already been put forward
and make sure that we get as many points in as we need to.
But Councillor Sharif.
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you, Nick, for your very detailed explanation
Cllr Razia Sharif - 2:43:14
of this complex planning application.
I'm not going to repeat everything
that Councillor Bronn was just saying.
I agree with much of what he said tonight.
For me, there are still lots of unresolved points.
M11 Junction, seven mitigation.
National Highways objection remains unresolved.
Short -term monitor and manage may not be legally robust.
I don't know where we stand on that.
Wastewater capacity, sewage treatment
won't support full occupation until 2030.
The enforceability of phasing conditions is also uncertain.
Community and sports infrastructure, great if we get it.
Delivery of Queen's Hall pitches, play areas and local centre depends on off -site agreements.
As far as I'm aware, Sports England objection is still pending.
Odour, living conditions, risk zones, need clarification.
I'm still uncertain about that, but maybe Nick can throw some more light on that.
I just think that this should be deferred, if I'm perfectly honest.
Sorry, I haven't noted all the points, because there's quite a few points there.
Nick Finney - 2:44:38
So on the M11 junction, there is a mitigation scheme
that National Highways and Essex County Council support.
That has, Essex Highways have undertaken a costing exercise
for that scheme and a cost has been established
and proportional costs have been identified
for different developments
that are coming forward in the vicinity.
So that cost has been applied to this application following an agreed formula approach.
There's also an initial intervention called the Cane's Lane improvement, which is on the
A414 side of the junction where an initial piece of work can be done to improve the capacity
on day one before the development commences.
So we are satisfied that that agreement,
that mitigation package is there to be secured.
There is only an outstanding point from National Highways
because they want to see the final legal wording of that.
And we're confident that will progress as is normal
after a committee meeting as the final section 106
legal agreement is finalised.
On the point around sewage capacity,
Given the scale of this development, it will take a number of years for housing starts
to come on stream.
There is substantial infrastructure that needs to be delivered, so the new road junction
site enabling works, new sewage infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, all of that will
take a number of years to get in place.
And then the first reserve matters application will be submitted and you get to the point
where homes are being delivered, there is sufficient time
for Thames Waters infrastructure capacity
enhancements to catch up.
And the applicant has been in direct discussion
with Thames Water about that infrastructure phasing.
And it's obviously in the applicant's interests
to get the infrastructure in place
because they need to connect to the sewage system
to be able to sell homes and occupy homes
under the normal regulations.
because the water companies have a legal obligation
to provide sewage facilities for new homes.
So do you wanna recap on any of the other points?
Community and infrastructure.
So the application does allow
for onsite community infrastructure is delivered,
but there is a preference from all involved
for the Queens Hall Memorial praying fields to be the focus of that investment.
And that has been subject to advanced discussions.
There has been design work undertaken.
There has been costing work undertaken.
We were only put in the and or in the report because that is obviously subject to that.
The legal agreement does allow for that negotiation to continue.
It requires it to be done completed in a set time scale so that it's delivered in alignment
with the housing.
If for whatever reason that agreement can't be reached, there is then a fallback to provide
that community facility on the site, also within a set time frame to ensure it's there
for as the housing comes forward.
Can I ask just one other question, please?
Cllr Razia Sharif - 2:48:13
When will mitigation be delivered in relation to occupation?
So will everything be in place before residents move in?
I think we just want assurances that we are going to get the school, we are going to get
the GP surgery, and everything else that surrounds this massive development.
Nick Finney - 2:48:36
So the delivery of infrastructure will be phased to come alongside the housing.
It won't be delivered in full before the housing, the first house is delivered.
The applicant obviously needs to fund these contributions out of, as the development progresses,
out of sale receipts to make it a viable proposition and enable that.
But we have put in a number of legal obligations to allow things to be triggered at reasonable
points in the development when pressure is reached for certain requirements.
The education point, we obviously will trigger the financial contributions to provide capacity
enhancements as housing is delivered.
Whether Essex County Council decide to build the primary school, that remains in their
gift.
The application, they have to date expressed that as their intent since the local plan.
So it's in the local plan on that basis.
They've expressed that intent during the application discussion and they've engaged in detailed
discussions about the design of the site to make sure they're satisfied with the access
and other site arrangements and it meets their site requirements.
So they've been closely engaged in the process.
They obviously have a continual process of monitoring school roles which change over
time and that sometimes changes strategy in the longer term but the everything has
been put in place to enable the delivery. Okay before I move on to another member
Cllr Sue Jones - 2:50:16
can we just then confirm so it's entirely up to Essex County Council or
its replacement as to whether they do build a school and we cannot at this
stage ensure that there is actually a doctor surgery built it might be that
that money goes into improvements at the limes.
So there is no way of saying that we support the residents
in their need to have a GP surgery on site.
So my understanding is that's correct.
Nick Finney - 2:50:45
So the delivery of health service decisions
is made by the ICB and the ICB therefore would decide
where the funding and health services are provided.
So we, even if we got to a situation where we required the applicant to build a health
centre on the site and open it by a certain date, there would be no medical service in
that building.
It would be vacant.
Yeah, I see that.
I just wanted that absolutely clarified.
Thank you.
Thanks very much indeed.
Councillor Morris.
Thank you, Chairman.
Just two quick points.
Cllr Martin Morris - 2:51:20
Yeah, we're going to allow them time to develop the sewage treatment facilities.
It's very nice to give them time.
Are we holding them to an absolute commitment?
Is there any way we can do that?
I mean, otherwise the development could take a lot longer than we expect because they don't
deliver in time.
So I think we need to find some way of holding them to it.
And the second question is, you did mention Church Lane.
Is there a concrete scheme to stop that from becoming a rat run?
because it's going to be the shortest route to Epping for most people on that site.
I'll take Church Lane first.
Nick Finney - 2:51:59
It's the one we drove back from the site.
That's correct.
So the application has been made on the basis that it is open as today,
and the traffic modelling for the scheme has been undertaken on that basis,
and that has been found to be acceptable by Essex County Council
in terms of where the traffic moves.
And obviously the development is prioritising
its main entrance, the northeast,
and access to the network in that location.
But notwithstanding that, it is recognised
that there would be benefits to the local area
and amenity and walking and cycling
if the route was downgraded.
So we have included a clause regarding further studies,
funding of further studies towards that in coordination
with Essex County Council.
But it's not triggered by the impact of the scheme
automatically as a mitigation that has to take place.
In terms of water, we can't enforce them to do works
They do have a statutory duty to do those works and there's other statutory powers and
oversight by government to make sure they meet those obligations.
They do publish their infrastructure plans and we can keep that under review to make
sure that it's in place as required.
Thank you.
And Councillor Williamson.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 2:53:43
As the shaping our district portfolio holder
for basically the local plan.
This is an allocated site.
It's got a strategic master plan.
We've been through it several times.
And we're talking about things that are outside our power,
the medical surgery, Thames water,
and certainly the Eppingonger line is outside of our remit as such.
I did go on the site visit, it was very useful.
I totally understand the upgrading of Queens Hall rather than a purpose -built centre,
but we've covered both angles.
If the Queens Hall doesn't work, then we go back to the original master plan ideas.
The only thing I can say on the integrated care board, there are other sites coming forward
on this area.
So the numbers will increase.
The need will increase for a medical centre on there.
Whereas I don't think we can condition it.
And as somebody said, if we do build it, where do we get the doctors from?
We all know there's a shortage of doctors,
especially ones that work.
I can see no reason why we do not accept this application
and approve it as it is.
It is a step forward on our local plan.
We have a developer that's interested in building
in the area, ready to go ahead.
I think we really should be approving this this evening.
Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Councillor Dadd.
Thank you Chairman.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 2:55:37
I have to say I agree with
almost all of the comments that have come forward tonight.
But I'd also like to
thank
Nick
for
the site visit which was very helpful.
And also for all the questions I've asked him since then, that he's obviously gone
into great detail and
I would actually reinstate what the parish council have said about working with the developers
and making changes before it's come to this.
I think that's very, very important.
I have got a couple of queries.
One is taking up what the parish council said about two million going to the health situation
but not being earmarked for within North Wield.
And I'm wondering whether there's any way that that can be rephrased or repurposed
so that the benefit does come to North Wield.
Because the danger is they will have spent money on improving the lines
and they won't be able to then have the money to do the health centre in North Wield.
And then I've got another couple of small questions, but perhaps it's easy to do once
time.
Thank you.
Nick Finney - 2:57:03
I might just come in on that question.
Rob Walker - 2:57:08
So as it stands, the obligation, the contribution will be secured in the 106 agreement.
Just have to bear in mind Regulation 1222 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations,
where you can only have regard to planning obligation where it's necessary to make a
development, except when planning terms directly related to the development, and fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
My primary concern, however, if you restricted that financial sum, so if you said the council
would collect that money on the NHS's behalf, and then the council would then hand it over
to the NHS once it's assured it will be spent on a certain purpose.
If you specified it has to be spent on a doctor's surgery or a new surgery in Northwell Bassett,
the Council could only then lawfully hand over that money for that purpose.
And under the MPPG there will be a requirement in the 106
for the Council to repay monies if they're not spent.
So you could potentially tie up that money in a position where it doesn't get spent on anything by the NHS.
And that would be a concern.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 2:58:20
Can you do the opposite by saying it mustn't be spent on refurbishing premises in another area?
Rob Walker - 2:58:25
I suppose it kind of maybe goes back to the same point. If that's what the NHS wants to do with the money,
if they've carried out their necessary assessments and they consider that's the best use of the money,
then it could then lead to the money just sat around and not being spent which is probably not a suggestion in the best interest.
Thank you.
Disappointing.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 2:58:48
Right, the other things that they may or may not be able to do anything about.
I'm very concerned about all the aspects that have been raised tonight and the sewage and things,
but the surface water flooding situation off -site.
Now I know the LLFA do look at Greenfield sites, so it's 100 % and they work out the
subs and attenuation and the discharge, etc.
But I am concerned about the accumulative effect into the Cripsy because down river
we have got more development and it's also we've got the 10 sewage
Nicely clean water also be discharging into the Cripsy which floods
It floods on the a414 it floods in Onge it floods further down and I'm wondering what
Else we could put in its conditions. For example, I'm looking at leaky dams and
and reed beds and various other things to actually slow that water down.
If we have a winter like we had recently where we've had wet conditions
far more frequently than in the park together, that's going to cause a major problem.
So that's my other one, whether that could be strengthened in any way.
Nick Finney - 3:00:19
So the application already proposes a surface water drainage strategy that seeks to retain
surface water drainage on the site, which is what the number of drainage ponds around
the site do.
So in heavy rainfall periods, that water is retained in those drainage ponds and only
released out to the waterway after that heavy rainfall period.
So from kind of not all planning guidance and regulations,
the scheme is already meeting that obligation
and addressing that potential flood risk issue.
So perhaps I've missed, not said it very well.
Number 40, prior to commencement,
offsite flooding mitigation.
And that is FASOL works the scheme to minimise the risk
of off -site flooding caused by surface water run -off, etc., etc. Now, if that is in a condition,
is that something that we have got control over if something happens in the first year
that causes issues elsewhere on off -site because of off -site flooding as a result of this development?
So, it's a Condition 40. Page 102.
So that relates to during construction works. So during construction works prior to the full
drainage strategy being implemented, there could be the need for interim
drainage infrastructure and that condition is requiring that that detail is provided for that interim period.
So what you're basically saying is we can't strengthen anything to do with off -site flooding mitigation.
So the scheme is...
So the scheme is currently mitigating its impact on flood risk.
So I'm not clear what further mitigation could be added.
Right, what I'm concerned about is I don't think the LLFA look at the accumulative effect
of this one plus the ones in Ornga plus the other ones further downstream.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 3:02:34
We've already got, we're protecting East London from flooding by having flooding near
Stanford rivers, but again it's going to back up with more flooding and that's my
concern is the accumulative effect and whether it's been looked at properly and
if there's anything in the in the conditions that we can can have a to look at.
Nick Finney - 3:03:02
I think the print that said I'm not objecting to anything we can
I'm just struggling to understand exactly what we're
trying to deliver because every scheme has to mitigate
its own impact, so there isn't a cumulative effect
of developments.
That's the objective.
So if every scheme addresses its own flood risk,
they're not adding to a new cumulative increase
in flooding.
And this scheme does address its flood risk.
Okay, well I think that the CPRE disagree with you on that.
Okay, I won't spend any more time because of the time.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 3:03:38
The other thing I wanted to actually ask was about the setting of the Grade 2 star listed church.
And I appreciate the pictures that you've shown, etc.
And certainly in that site, to the north of the site, you're looking down towards it.
but our own EFDC, historic environment officer had objections to this
and I do feel that settings of listed buildings are not particularly well understood
and it's not a matter of distance, it's a matter of the purpose in the first place and how they're affected
and I was wondering whether you had, it's obviously too late in this stage now,
but whether you had considered during the process
of having some of the green open spaces near the sang
or the sang being slightly different shape
to that she had something nearer to the church
to safeguard that setting.
Rob Walker - 3:04:39
So the hurt gets the impact on the heritage asset
Nick Finney - 3:04:41
has been considered for the development of the master plan
and alignments of roads, viewing points,
and arrangements of green infrastructure
has been developed in response to that.
It hasn't been identified that that whole area
of the master plan should be green space
to remove development from that setting.
And the green spaces have been set in other parts
of the master plans driven by sort of very good reasons
for why they need to be there.
One is to the east of the site is supporting the social heart and locator they call the
master plan and the south west is supporting the sang and connexion to the green space.
If you introduce additional green space on top of those you wouldn't be able to deliver
the housing that we're seeking to deliver here.
I wasn't suggesting that.
What I'm basically saying is we have got very good historic environment officers and we're
ignoring their objection and we should have been looking at it in a bit more detail about
how to protect it a bit, not greatly up there, but we need a bit more protection. But perhaps
it's too late, I don't know, but I'm disappointed that we haven't listened to our historic
environment officers.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 3:05:58
Okay. You've made your point. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:06:02
Councillor Church.
Cllr Bob Church - 3:06:07
Thank you Chairman. I'd like to know if there's been any improvements considered for Church
Lane because at the moment it is a rat run. It is used considerably. It is very narrow
in places, not two lanes wide. It's a lane, lane and a half wide and there isn't a foot
path. Now that lane will connect to the main heart of the village and people will want
to walk down, even if they don't drive,
they will want to walk down there.
There isn't a footpath there at the moment.
Has it been considered to put a footpath
or carry out any improvements on Church Lane,
anticipating the increased use?
Not directly, so what has been considered
Nick Finney - 3:06:54
is that potential closure,
but that's not a fixed part of the proposal,
and that potential closure would turn Church Lane in effect
into a cycling and walking route.
So that's still there to be further investigated.
What the master plan does deliver in terms of connexions
to North Wield is at the southern end of the master plan.
There's a connexion to Queens Road
and there's also the connexion where the Queens Hall is.
And that's proposed as the primary route
into North Wield village and will become
a cycling and pedestrian route that is clear
in the master plan as the route to the village.
So it wouldn't be expected that people would seek
to use Church Lane as a primary route.
Thank you.
Very quickly.
Sorry, one very important thing I wanted to say,
Cllr Mary Dadd - 3:07:49
and that is I'm really worried about the amount
of congestion that would be on the A414 due to this
It's already bad on a Saturday morning with the Northfield market.
And I also feel that it would be worth having a conversation with Essex Highways and National Highways
about opening M11 Junction 5 in all directions because we have far too much traffic
who can't come off at Loughton, who come through Epping and A414 and down through
Ongar and Stanford Rivers, is that going to be any possibility at some stage?
Not quite sure what any of us can say to that, if I'm perfectly honest, that's way beyond our control and how we met.
But I think your point has been taken.
Grandmaster to come in.
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:08:52
Yeah, Councillor, sorry.
Grandmaster to come in, Whiskey.
Oh, so sorry, Councillor Whiskey.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 3:09:00
One question is why aren't we waiting
till we have certainty from National Highways
before we're dealing with IFS otherwise?
I think we should be deferring this
until we get confirmation from National Highways
that they're gonna remove their objection.
whatever conditions are put in front.
We should be doing this once we have that clarity,
is my first point.
Second point, the medical centres are vital.
If it's part of the master plan,
that there are other sites alongside this,
it must be, it's absolute logic to put this in at this point
and the public will expect it.
That's the one thing I feel very much
from all the discussions I've heard,
and not only in this chamber, but outside,
is that infrastructure is getting forgotten and it's a secondary thought and yes, developers
will put money forward for it, there's experiences of developers not doing it whatever, section
106 agreements are in place, there are lots of tricks they can pull I'm sure where they
can wriggle out of things. It's vital that the public expect infrastructure to go in
first and then the development should follow and that will, especially with the road networks
around North Wield. I also, thirdly, have concerns about the deliverability of affordable
housing given the current climate in terms of construction costs and the 40 per cent
requirement. We have seen recently in the last cabinet meeting about proposals to take
place and buy houses in Fifield. It is because they are struggling with the affordability
and the social housing. It is something to be seriously considered.
I would add that it's not unusual for an outline application to come to us with a holding objection
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:10:54
from National Highways. It's nothing unusual. I actually personally found it very reassuring
that negotiations and discussions were so advanced. I think sometimes we do have to
trust the developers and trust the system. They're saying it's about the 15th of May.
why don't we just wait till then.
Councillor Williamson. Just very briefly chair I think the officers have given us
Cllr Ken Williamson - 3:11:16
the reassurance on the national highways on the objection and we have to take
their advice on that. Thank you chair I've managed to keep quiet for over
Cllr Will Kauffman - 3:11:32
three hours. I'm minded to think I would like a bit more time, so maybe a deferment here,
because I just can't quite contemplate how, if say Latin Prairie comes forward, we don't
know how that's going to play, we've got the Google scheme coming forward, this scheme,
I think Councillor Dadd's said it quite well, maybe we do need to really have a think about
a junction further down going both ways because this is going to be a 10 years here of how
does the market function if we're digging the road up for the Google cables?
How does this scheme then come forward because the traffic is going to have to be going through?
I think I'm searching just for reassurance that we're joined up and that I suppose a
holistic approach has been taken that we can implement all these, let's be frank, nationally
important schemes on certain things, strategic important on others. Can they all be done
at the same time without a major, major knock -on effect in the district?
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:12:47
Rob Walker - 3:12:50
Thank you, Chair. Yes, if I just address that point, I think the reason I understand it's
brought to committee tonight is that negotiations
between the applicant and National Highways
and Essex County Council have reached a stage
where there is a reasonable prospect
that they are going to reach agreement on the finer details.
And I think in the committee report,
it does mention the fact that the transport assessment
has been looked at closely by Essex County Council
and they consider it to be robust.
Does it change about Google?
Google, the other applications
that are presumably gonna be implemented at the same time?
So when for any transport assessment it will all have to assess and this was also subject
to an EIA I believe this application so an environmental impact assessment that will
look at the cumulative impacts of development coming forward in the area and so I know that
Latham Priory has been considered as part of the Junction 7 M11 improvements as part
of that.
At the same time that's the point, all that construction at the same time.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 3:13:49
Rob Walker - 3:13:50
But I think that is all part of the discussions at the moment, is around triggers around those
junction improvements in terms of the two schemes and when the improvements would need
to be provided.
And so, sorry.
In terms of construction logistics matters.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 3:14:07
I think that's what we, there needs to be some sort of, some sort of a duty to cooperate
almost between these schemes.
if LassenPro comes forward, Google's scheme is being built,
that there is a way that they can all be implemented together
and we have thought it.
I think that's a reasonable thing to have some sort of
thought about.
So we have proposed playing conditions on construction
management plans.
Rob Walker - 3:14:35
We could add wording to the fact that that wider coordination is
needed with Essex Highways and other developments.
I think that I'm happy with that.
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:14:48
Right, Members, I think it's time we move this to a vote.
Just do you want to clarify that extra point that you want written in?
I was going to say, does that need to be clarified by...
Can we just clarify that final point about adding...
...the former Commissioner?
We are just finalising where we best put that suggestion in.
Cllr Razia Sharif - 3:15:55
Councillor S
still objections that we are waiting for, we are waiting for answers?
I think in all fairness the officers have actually answered most of our concerns with
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:16:14
the information. It may not be the information we necessarily wanted to hear, but I think
they have actually given us a really good guidance on this. They have spent substantial
time with the report. I really feel we need to move on to a vote on this.
Rob Walker - 3:16:38
The point, just to reiterate, as Nick said at the outset, under the recommendation, if
national highways did not remove their objection and the 106 obligations weren't agreed, it
would need to come back to committee, this application, for consideration.
Thank you.
Okay, so if we can just confirm the additional item, sentence.
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:16:54
Nick Finney - 3:17:00
So it's amendment to proposed condition 27 and it's to add an additional bullet point
to the bullet point list that's section two of that condition to say to add the construction
logistics, transport strategy should be agreed which coordinates multiple
developments. Okay okay members I am going to move this to vote I think we
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:17:31
have had a detailed discussion so the the recommendation is to approve planning
and outlined planning permission with the conditions
and planning obligations in the officer's report,
including that most recent addition
and with the withdrawal of the holding objective
from the national highways.
All those in favour of granting, please show.
That's six, Chair.
All those against.
One chair was there eight sorry eight
Eight eight, I didn't see that. Sorry. Okay, so outline permission is granted
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:18:22
Okay, our final item on tonight's agenda is any other business
There's no other business chair
Yes, I just wanted to know when there's going to be a statement
about the
Cllr Mary Dadd - 3:18:33
of information about changes to the written appeal system since
from the 1st of April whereby
written
appeals
Can't have any added further added evidence or any interested parties can't add any further evidence. I think that's very important for
Residents and for local and parish councils
As well as for the committee members
No, totally agree, but I don't know that it's within our, this committee's remit.
Cllr Sue Jones - 3:19:06
I think it has communication directly with the planning officers and I'm sure they will
be informing us of any change of policy as they always do.
But we are planning committee and we need to be told.
We will be.
I can't believe we won't be told to, okay.
Thank you very much indeed members.
As mentioned earlier, this is our final meeting of the Civic Year.
So thank you very much indeed.
Cllr Tom Bromwich
District councillor for North Weald Bassett ward
Epping Forest Independents Group
View profile Cllr Tom Bromwich
Cllr Bob Church
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Bob Church
Cllr Mary Dadd
District councillor for Ongar ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Mary Dadd
Sukhi Dhadwar
Principal Planning Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Sukhi Dhadwar
Nick Finney
Interim Implementation Team Manager
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Nick Finney
Cllr Steven Heather
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Sue Jones
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Sue Jones
Cllr Will Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jeane Lea
District councillor for Waltham Abbey North ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Jeane Lea
Cllr Tim Matthews
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Tim Matthews
Cllr Lisa Morgan
District councillor for Grange Hill ward
Epping Forest Independents Group
View profile Cllr Lisa Morgan
Cllr Martin Morris
District councillor for Waltham Abbey North ward
Labour Party
View profile Cllr Martin Morris
Alex Sadowsky
Senior Planning Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Alex Sadowsky
Serena Shani
Democratic Services Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Serena Shani
Cllr Razia Sharif
District councillor for Epping West and Rural ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Razia Sharif
Cllr Chris Whitbread
District councillor for Roydon and Lower Nazeing ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Chris Whitbread
Cllr Ken Williamson
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Graham Wiskin
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Graham Wiskin