Planning Committee A - Wednesday 29 April 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee A
Wednesday, 29th April 2026 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
  1. Serena Shani
Share this agenda point
  1. Serena Shani
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Muhammad Rahman
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
  3. Muhammad Rahman
  4. Cllr Steven Heather
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Steven Heather
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Steven Heather
  9. Cllr Mary Dadd
  10. Cllr Steven Heather
  11. Cllr Tim Matthews
  12. Cllr Steven Heather
  13. Cllr Richard Bassett
  14. Cllr Steven Heather
  15. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  16. Cllr Steven Heather
  17. Cllr Razia Sharif
  18. Muhammad Rahman
  19. Cllr Razia Sharif
  20. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  21. Cllr Steven Heather
  22. Cllr Alan Lion
  23. Cllr Steven Heather
  24. Cllr Will Kauffman
  25. Cllr Steven Heather
  26. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  27. Cllr Steven Heather
  28. Muhammad Rahman
  29. Cllr Steven Heather
  30. Muhammad Rahman
  31. Cllr Steven Heather
  32. Cllr Mary Dadd
  33. Cllr Steven Heather
  34. Cllr Steven Heather
  35. Cllr Tim Matthews
  36. Cllr Richard Bassett
  37. Cllr Steven Heather
  38. Cllr Tim Matthews
  39. Cllr Steven Heather
  40. Cllr Mary Dadd
  41. Cllr Steven Heather
  42. Cllr Mary Dadd
  43. Cllr Steven Heather
  44. Amanda Apcar
  45. Cllr Steven Heather
  46. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  47. Cllr Steven Heather
  48. Cllr Richard Bassett
  49. Amanda Apcar
  50. Cllr Tim Matthews
  51. Cllr Steven Heather
  52. Cllr Steven Heather
  53. Muhammad Rahman
  54. Cllr Steven Heather
  55. Cllr Tim Matthews
  56. Cllr Steven Heather
  57. Cllr Tim Matthews
  58. Muhammad Rahman
  59. Cllr Steven Heather
  60. Sukhi Dhadwar
  61. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Sukhi Dhadwar
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
  3. Sukhi Dhadwar
  4. Cllr Steven Heather
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Steven Heather
  7. Public Speaker
  8. Cllr Steven Heather
  9. Public Speaker
  10. Cllr Steven Heather
  11. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  12. Cllr Steven Heather
  13. Cllr Barbara Cohen
  14. Cllr Steven Heather
  15. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  16. Sukhi Dhadwar
  17. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  18. Cllr Steven Heather
  19. Cllr Razia Sharif
  20. Cllr Steven Heather
  21. Cllr Tim Matthews
  22. Cllr Steven Heather
  23. Sukhi Dhadwar
  24. Cllr Steven Heather
  25. Cllr Alan Lion
  26. Cllr Steven Heather
  27. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  28. Sukhi Dhadwar
  29. Cllr Steven Heather
  30. Cllr Will Kauffman
  31. Sukhi Dhadwar
  32. Cllr Steven Heather
  33. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
  1. Alex Sadowsky
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Steven Heather
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Steven Heather
  7. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  8. Cllr Tippy Cornish
  9. Cllr Steven Heather
  10. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  11. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  12. Cllr Steven Heather
  13. Alex Sadowsky
  14. Cllr Steven Heather
  15. Cllr Lisa Morgan
  16. Cllr Steven Heather
  17. Cllr Will Kauffman
  18. Alex Sadowsky
  19. Cllr Will Kauffman
  20. Alex Sadowsky
  21. Cllr Will Kauffman
  22. Cllr Tim Matthews
  23. Cllr Steven Heather
  24. Sukhi Dhadwar
  25. Cllr Steven Heather
  26. Cllr Tim Matthews
  27. Sukhi Dhadwar
  28. Cllr Steven Heather
  29. Cllr Will Kauffman
  30. Cllr Steven Heather
  31. Alex Sadowsky
  32. Cllr Will Kauffman
  33. Sukhi Dhadwar
  34. Alex Sadowsky
  35. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  36. Cllr Steven Heather
  37. Sukhi Dhadwar
  38. Cllr Steven Heather
  39. Cllr Tim Matthews
  40. Sukhi Dhadwar
  41. Cllr Steven Heather
  42. Cllr Richard Bassett
  43. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  44. Sukhi Dhadwar
  45. Cllr Steven Heather
  46. Cllr Tim Matthews
  47. Cllr Steven Heather
  48. Cllr Steven Heather
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:00:00
planning committee A on Wednesday the 29th of April 2026.
Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone
that this meeting will be filmed live or recorded
and uploaded to the internet
and will be capable of repeated viewing.
Therefore, by participating in this meeting,
you are consenting to being filmed
and to the possible use of those images
and sound recordings.
If any public speakers on MS teams
do not wish to have their image captured,
they should ensure their video setting
throughout the meeting is turned off and set to audio only. Members and public speakers
are reminded to turn on their microphones before speaking and turn them off when they
have finished. Thank you. My name is Councillor Stephen Heather. I'm the chairman for tonight's
meeting. To my left from the planning department we have Alex Adalski, Zukie Dadwa and Marie
Claire Tovey and to the far left is Amanda Apcar from legal services. To my right is
my Vice Chairman, Councillor Anand Laihan. To his right from democratic services is Serena
Sharni and to the very far right, the webcaster is Lou Baker. We also have Mohammed Rahman
joining us on Teams for his presentation later. Members of public who intend to speak, you
should have been briefed by Democratic Services but you will have three minutes to state your
case and again remind you to turn your microphone on before you start off when you finish. Thank

2 ADVICE TO PUBLIC AND SPEAKERS ATTENDING THE COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

you. Ward members, just to remind you that you cannot determine applications in your

3 Apologies for absence

ward. Apologies for absence. You have apologies from Councillor Bromwich.
Serena Shani - 0:01:47
Thank you. Substitute members. Yep. Councillor Whiskin to substitute for

4 Substitute Members

Serena Shani - 0:02:01
Councillor Cohen for item number 11 and Councillor L Morgan to substitute for
Councillor Bremench for the whole meeting. Thank you. Declarations of interest members.

5 Declarations of interest

6 Minutes

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:02:07
Thank you. Can I take the minutes on pages six to eight to be a true record of the committee
meeting held on the 18th of March? Agreed. Thank you. Right, I need to make the following

7 EPF 0849 25 - Land West of Merlin Way

bits of our amendment. Agenda item seven. Following legal advice there is no part of the

6 Minutes

proposal that requires a member sign off.
This matter is therefore deferred back to officers
for determination.
Agenda item eight, the address that should be read as
land west of Mutton Row, Stanford Rivers,
Mutton Row, Ongar CM5 9QQ.
And agenda item nine, following instructions
from the applicant, this item has been withdrawn
from the agenda.
Thank you.

7 EPF 0849 25 - Land West of Merlin Way

So our first item on the agenda then on pages 106 to 123 is EPF 1081 stroke 25

8 EPF 1081 25 - Land adjacent Newhouse Farm, Stanford Rivers

land west of mutton row Stanford Stanford rivers mutton row onga cm5 9
QQ and Mohammed on teams you're going to take us through this one that's correct
Muhammad Rahman - 0:03:29
Thank you. Good evening chair members and everyone. Item A relates to land west of
mutton row in Stanford rivers. As the chair mentioned the site address was
updated following representations received from local residents in order
to avoid further confusion. Also condition 18 is to be deleted as it's
covered by the tailpiece attached to condition 13 relating to lighting. Turn
to the application it's before members since there are five or more objections and the officer
recommendation is for approval. A member site visit also took place this Monday. The proposal
seeks permission for a residential caravan site comprising three gypsy and traveller pitches
with each pitch consisting of one mobile home, one touring caravan and a day room.
So here turning to the slides here we have the location plan.
Here's the site outline in red including the access and the pond section in blue which is
under the ownership. Here's an aerial view of the site
And the application is retrospective in nature as you can see over here.
And here's the proposed site plan.
So you have the three pitches, pitch number one, two and three.
And you can see the day room, mobile home and the touring caravan.
Here's the view of the access.
So here's a view of the flood map following recommendations from members.
As you can see on the left hand side, this one here, this is the flood map which shows
The flood section, the area is prone to surface water flooding.
As you can see outlined in red, the site itself where the caravans are to be stored, stationed.
The site is not at risk of flooding nor is it in an EA flood zone.
The image to the right hand side, this shows the direction the water flows from the flooding.
So it starts off here and it flows downwards, still avoiding the site when the caravans are
sighted. And here's a large image presented by Stanford Rivers Parish. Again you can see
the site itself is not at risk of flooding, but the pond section and the remaining areas are.
So here's a view of one of the pitches.
They've got the caravan day room, mobile home.
This is their second pitch and the third pitch.
And further views of the access route within the site.
Chair members, the full assessment is set out in the agenda papers and I will just highlight
the key points.
The site is located in a rural area with limited access to services.
It is not well connected to shops, schools or healthcare facilities and there are no
realistic public transport options available.
For example, the nearest hospital, St Margaret's, is over six miles away.
As a result, the current occupants, particularly the children, would be heavily reliant on private vehicles for the day -to -day needs.
For this reason, the site is not considered to be suitable for them.
In addition, the proposal would result in some harm to the character and appearance of the countryside,
particularly from the impacts of the residential paraphernalia.
Members should also know that there is limited information before us as to how the occupants,
education, healthcare and daily needs would be met in this particular location.
However, these concerns must be weighed against a very important consideration. That is the council
currently has a significant shortfall in gypsy and traveler's side provision and is unable to
demonstrate a five -year supply. To put that into context, the current position is around 0 .3 years
supply against a five -year requirement.
This is a long -standing and well -established issue,
and it carries substantial weight in decision -making.
Government policy requires us to take this shortfall into account,
and in circumstances such as these,
to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development,
often referred to as the tilted balance.
In simple terms, that means that unless the harm clearly outweighs
outweighs the benefits planning permission should be granted.
In this case, while some harm has been identified, officers do consider that the harm to be of limited nature
and by contrast the benefit of contributing towards a clear and pressing need for gypsy and traveller accommodation is given significant weight.
Members should also be mindful that refusing the application may be difficult to defend our appeal.
Cases of these nature, particularly where there are children involved, are often dealt with by way of public enquiries.
This can expose the council to significant costs, including the need to instruct council to defend the case, let alone the risk of a cost award.
taking everything into account officers conclude that the benefits outweigh the harm.
For these reasons the government recommendation before you is to grant planning permission subject to conditions
and a section 106 legal agreement to secure the necessary contributions and monitoring fees.
Thank you chair, that's the end.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:10:00
Thank you. Can I just clarify that you'd say condition 18 has been removed?
That's correct. It's to be deleted as it's covered by the tell piece in condition 13.
Muhammad Rahman - 0:10:10
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:10:15
Thank you. We have a public speaker on this. An objector. Mr Rupert Miles.
Thank you, Chair.
Your three minutes.
Public Speaker - 0:10:24
My three minutes start. Let me set my timer so I behave myself. Bear with me.
They have, right. Keep me on track.
Okay, so I apologise, I live in the country, so I'm suffering a bit from a bit of hay fever.
But I've lived at Newhouse Farm for the last 20 years or so.
I brought up with my wife, Beverly, three of my daughters there.
And it is the most glorious environment, as you might imagine.
I am opposing this motion, and the reason why is on two grounds.
The first is greenbelt protection.
You know this better than I could possibly hope to.
but I think this is a completely inappropriate development.
It replaces what used to be just open pastures and trees and bushes
and shrubs with what is
hard standing fencing, lights at night, which would normally be
a completely dark area and of course the trucks, the vans,
the caravans in the pictures you've just seen, they're nicely posed
to be hardly there. I tell you there's a lot more of it than
is in the pictures.
So that's on Greenbelt.
But the other reason why I oppose it
is because Monroe is very special.
It's one of only 27 lanes that were accorded
protected status back in the 90s.
And in 2015, the Epping Council did a study
and confirmed that this remained protected.
What that means, my understanding of the whole idea
of protecting just 27 lanes in the whole area
was what the people who were doing it
were trying to protect the historical
and the heritage preservation.
They were trying to protect the landscape,
the character, and the natural features of the area.
And they were trying to control development
and reduce impact of traffic.
And finally, of course, they were looking to prevent
physical deterioration of the grounds,
specifically citing impact on ditches and hedgerows.
And if you take those, and I don't have time
to go into it exhaustively, on every measure
that the protection was designed to protect
against this development fails.
It's a fantastically historical area we live in.
The Berlin family went to church,
that's Margaret's church just down Mutton Road.
That's Anne Berlin, by the way.
Our house was standing in the reign of Henry VIII.
I could go on.
There's the oldest wooden church just up the road at Greenstead.
We're surrounded by precious historical views.
Unfortunately, this development, should it go ahead,
would really be a blight on all of that.
There's evidence from the activities
thus far that the entrance has been expanded,
so some of the verges have been destroyed already.
So I'd ask that you reject this proposal
and also put an order on to make good the damage that has already been done to the area.
Thank you for listening.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:13:29
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Stanford Rivers Town Clerk, or Parish Clerk, sorry, Adriana Jones on Teams.
Are you there?
Yes.
Public Speaker - 0:13:48
Thank you. Good evening, committee. So the objections of the parish council are well
documented within the officer's report and I do not intend to go over them again other
than to confirm that they remain. Instead the question before members is not necessarily
whether the 0 .3 year supply figure cited in the 1st of April position statement is correct,
but how much weight it should reasonably be given in the specific planning balance.
I also remind you this is a position statement.
It has not been approved by full council,
has not been endorsed by cabinet,
and has not been adopted as policy,
but it's planning evidence, not a binding decision.
What should be clear to the committee is in March, 2023,
the local plan was adopted with a clear,
accepted tested plan for the gypsy and traveller community.
How, one could ask, can it be that within 36 months
of the local plan, the position has changed so drastically?
A big part of the reason for this is the change in definition introduced into the 2024 MPPF
review.
As such, the committee should know that there has not been a long -term failure of EFDC for
the provision of the travelling community, but instead the 0 .3 year figure is a snapshot
in time caused by a government -induced redefinition.
It's almost like the government is setting you up to fail.
Based purely on the 0 .3 year land supply the officer
has rightly done their job warning you that if you take
this to appeal it could be costly and difficult to defend.
However I would like to remind you that also
within the officer's report it clearly states
that the site has no access to local services no access
to local amenities or sustainable transport.
There's an absence of schools nearby health care facilities
and community infrastructure.
The site would not meet the day to day needs
the intended occupants without daily transport which is a longer protected lane. There is harm
to the character and appearance of the countryside and finally the site is not considered suitable
in sustainability terms. Seemingly all these planning negatives are simply outweighed by
a lack of supply as if anything is better than nothing. If as a committee you grant this
permission you'll be setting a precedent that has the potential to open the floodgates to tens if
not hundreds of applications from traveller sites in this location which
are entirely inappropriate and unsuitable. I remind you Greenbelt
policy still applies and the Greybelt argument fails on this occasion for
sustainability reasons. Sustainability still matters and harm
must still be addressed. The tilted balance does exactly that. It tilts. It
does not remove the scales. The 0 .3 years stated in the position statement
is capable of informing the balance but it does not dictate the outcome. There are times when a
planning authority must take the risk of appeal. This is that exact occasion. Thank you. Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:16:44
We now have Councillor Mary Dadd, who's although not the ward Councillor,
you are the adjacent ward and this you've been approached by your residents.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:16:59
Thank you, Chairman. This is a difficult and emotive situation for the travellers and I
do have sympathy with them about their mother's failing health. And because of the planning
policy for travellers, there is recognition that personal circumstances for gipsies and
is actually a material planning consideration and that their needs means planning balance
tilted in favour. However, if this was three dwellings, normal dwellings in that location,
I have no doubt that the planning officers would have actually said it was inappropriate
development in the greenbelt. The other thing that still requires is the following the planning
policy for traveller sites 2024, including paragraph 25, which requires using the EFDC
site selection process for the Egyptian traveller sites, which is EB801P. And what it basically
says is that if it's an unallocated site, you should still use the site methodology.
Now there are 34 criteria in this with reference 1 to 6 .6. 19 have it they score
from plus plus plus, nought, minus and minus minus and obviously the minus minus are
not in favour. There are 19 where they score nought. There's one that's not
applicable because it's to do with flood plains of rivers. There's 12 that score
minus or double minus and there's two that score plus plus both of which
relate to flood risk from rivers rather than surface water and groundwater or
pluvial surface water. So I think that needs to be looked at very seriously and
I may come back to that but there are emissions in the expected reports and
surveys of Mott's Meadows, it's now called, and the surrounding areas.
This is a retrospective planning application.
They arrived in July.
They had previously owned the site and had used it for dog training.
And all of a sudden, having been in another authorised site for a long time, they decided
it was no longer suitable.
That is their own personal problems, and I know that it's material planning concerns.
However, the case officer suggests it could be met by conditions.
However, since they've occupied in July, some aspects have been carried out without evidence
of compliance with building regs.
For example, there's been a Harlequin fire water system being installed that actually
seems to go into the pond.
And there's a couple of other things I want to come back to on the flood map shortly.
but it may well be better to either defer pending satisfactory reports and evidence
or to refuse based on the aspects that would be hard or impossible to mitigate against.
I've got several refusal reasons I'd like you to listen to.
The first one is irreversible harm to the protected lane, EPP Lane 25, which has a high score of 18.
It is, Mutton Row is very narrow, I mean very narrow, and there's no passing places, and
there's a big notice that's been there for at least 25 years saying unsuitable for HGVs.
This application would require, highways have said that they require removing ancient protected
hedgerows which were boundaries of fields going back to the 16th century to make access
visibility splay is required. Something else is going to add on that, I forgot what I was
going to say, but there's also substantial harm to the lane, it's
already been mentioned, about the verges which have still got, you know, old
natural plants in there as well and that's caused by negotiating
access with trailers and or lorries and there are 3 .5 tonne lorries parked
regularly on that site not in those pictures but I have seen photographs
from that neighbours have done and they when they trail then they take the
touring caravans of course it's more difficult to negotiate as you saw there
one static caravan already in situ, it begs the question how they're going to get two
more in if that lane is unsuitable for Scottish highways, unsuitable for HGVs. Highways also
said that it is up to the local planning authority to protect the protected lane. The second,
And I think that that is a very strong case because although the case officer didn't actually
mention it, I think DM3 relates to ancient landscapes, part A .1.
Another reason, number two, would be a development would increase surface water flooding in the
immediate area.
And you saw that where they're putting the caravans actually hasn't got surface water
flooding, but the whole plot is owned by the travellers. It's 0 .4 hectares in total.
It's now called Motts Meadow and it's an area of heavy clay with surface water
flooding issues. The fields to the east of Mutton Row are higher than Mutton
Row. There's no proper ditches. It comes flooding down Mutton Row and then
there's been flooding of actual of Crooked Barn which is the next one down.
But also that pond is sometimes dry in the summer but when it does overflow
there is a pipe that flows into the big pond at Crooked Barn. The difference in
height seasonally and big, and it is a huge lake, can be two metres but there in
last four or five years has been four times and I think photographs are sent to you of
flooding going actually into their home. They've tried to put extra pipes to try and deviate
it going underneath, but any additional surface water problems would be a problem. And of
course if you think about additional water use by three families and the loss of the
Crooked Barn and the Newhouse Farmhouse and the danger of claims against, they talk about
danger about if we refuse it, but there's also danger about claims against EFDC for
permitting it and then damage to property. In addition to, there's been no details of
the surface water proposal as far as they say a soak away and sustainable drainage system,
which they put on their application form.
The grey and foul water removal system has been installed,
but no building regs, et cetera, have been submitted
on the website.
It feeds, as I said, into the area around the pond,
which overflows into Crooked Barn's large pond,
and could also add pollution or contamination concerns
affecting the great Equested Newt.
The third reason for refusal could be
the proposed development will be out of character. It is in an area of high sensitivity to change
as per the site selection process for our local plan. Three new dwellings will be refused at this
location so and therefore so should six caravans and three 16 foot by nine foot 10 by 10 foot high
day rooms. Fourthly harm to the protected and endangered species.
That includes, there was a preliminary ecology report, but they mostly concentrated on greater
crested newts and to some extent foraging for bats.
But the endangered and protected species include bats, barn owls, badgers, water voles, and
possibly door mice.
And most of those are affected by the noise, including the generator that runs, and the
lighting.
And the lighting has been installed throughout the site.
I was on the site visit and at the boundaries, despite the proposed conditions.
And they are inconsistent relating, which is inconsistent relating to lighting,
so the conditions need to be looked at a bit more carefully.
There is not a complete mitigation proposal for all the species on the site
or importantly on the neighbouring crooked barn land.
There is just a fence between them and no way that the wildlife are going to actually differentiate.
The fifth one is harm to the setting of Crooked Barn.
EFDC conservation team was unaware, and I raised it with them,
that the vegetation they thought existed at the boundary of Mott's Meadow no longer exists.
So a robust condition might mitigate this issue, but it should be clear that the setting
of a listed building, this is 16th century thatched barn, is not the distance, it's the
purpose of it as well.
In other words, as policies have been intervened, included in the case officer report, but I've
also highlighted DM3 relating to the ancient landscape, part A .E .1, DM7, setting of the
listed building, and the setting is not limited to distance, DM15, 16, and 18 relating to
water management, etc.
DM21 local environment impacts, the noise and light,
as well as H4 parts A and B, traveller sites, and SP6.
However, should the committee not want to refuse,
although pulling out of ancient protected hedgerow
can't be mitigated against,
please consider deferring a decision based on information
that I've listed and your, that is missing. It's also in your report
from Councillor Church about some of the missing reports. And in addition and very
lastly some aspects of the conditions do need to be looked at and strengthened.
At present there is contradictory conditions relating to lighting and I
think that the officer has just changed that numbers 13 and 18 but condition
18 should have also included a reason for the lighting with harm to wildlife.
There's a query relating to condition 7 where proposed planting should be in
perpetuity rather than replaced if they die within five years and there's no
landscaping being produced at all. Condition, they've been in situ since
since July, not full time, I know.
Condition two needs to be for the named families
rather than generally for any gypsie or traveller.
And I think that one is really, really key.
If this is accepted or goes to appeal as accepted,
it would be on the personal circumstance
of these particular people rather than generally.
Condition three must emphasise and state emphatically
that there has been no commercial activity.
I wrote to highways and they said that it was based on their approval was based
on the fact that LPA looked at the protected lane and it was only for
residential use and that is quite key as we know. Condition 4 it relates to
foul and surface water disposal which needs to be stronger worded that's about
three months to send in something and then another three months. Condition 10
is unacceptable due to irreversible harm to ancient protected hedgerows and
condition 13 should be no lighting and also should mention barn owls, nocturnal
mammals etc that are affected and lastly condition 17 implies it's a temporary
application for use as a travel site. Now is it temporary or is it permanent and
that I was unclear about and thank you for listening. Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:30:20
Thank you, Councillor. Members. Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:30:29
Thank you, Chair. We just heard sort of in detailed analysis by Councillor Dab there.
For me, this is just really simple. There is absolutely no way I can agree with the
recommendation for approval on this site. There is no reason why this would ever get
approved other than the fact that of the situation we find ourselves in with the
shortfall of the land supply but for me personally looking at the pictures there
looking at the flood zone while it might not actually be the the mobile homes are
situated on the flood zone it's an island if it does flood there is water
the whole way around it and there is no way I feel that a shortfall in our land
supply is a justification to endanger lives of the people that will live there
by allowing them to develop on an island.
It is absolutely crazy.
We've heard all the reasons,
and we know that the reasons can be weighted against us
because of the land supply.
However, there is still valid reasons on the rural location,
no services, no amenities, no healthcare,
not suitable for the day -to -day needs
and harm to the countryside.
All of these reasons cannot just be brushed aside
because of the land supply.
I would be 100 % confident that if this was to go to appeal, we could fight that case
and come out on the right side of it if it wasn't approved this evening.
I do not think it's acceptable under any circumstances.
There are sites specified in the local plan.
This is not suitable and I will not be supporting the officer's recommendation.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:32:06
Thank you, Chairman.
Yeah, being someone that...
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:32:11
I was like, mine just went totally blank.
Being someone that was heavily involved with the local plan,
we did do extensive work identifying suitable sites.
And also is one of the things that you talk about land supply,
Epping Forest has already the highest number of gypsy and
traveller sites in Essex.
In Essex Council I dare say there's a few down towards Thirrup Way that might be increased.
But no, we've always done quite well and we've always tried to be reasonable.
I live in Nasing and I think we've got nearly 100 pitches in Nasing.
So Epping Forest were ahead of the game in actually allowing them and creating them in suitable places.
We did a hell of a lot of work on the local plan identifying other suitable locations.
This is not one of those sites. It is just not there.
Councillor Dabbs, I think I've got notes of most of the things that you've said.
I already had been identifying them.
And I'm just not happy with the way this has been done.
It is retrospective, they've moved on there, they've done it.
They know that it's most probably going to get turned down because they know what's allowable
and what's not allowable and that is the way they're doing it.
And if you look at the site, they'll start with three and I can see it being increased
quite quickly to others joining them.
So therefore that issue on named families only but then, I hate to say it, we've got
couple of sites like that and everyone on the site suddenly appears with the same name,
which is quite interesting.
But I'll say the road approaching the site is in the floodplain, so if there are issues,
they can't get on the site.
You've got, you know, all of the policies there, hedgerow removal, unsafe for HGVs,
And we know that a lot of these sites,
there's probably three and a half tonne vehicles on site
all the time, churning it all up.
Foul water pollution, they've put in a foul water system.
And the way it's going to be done,
if it doesn't get drained properly,
it will be off, overflowing into the lake, which again,
is harm to wildlife.
I cannot support this in this way.
I think it's totally the wrong site.
I don't know why the officer has thought this site is suitable.
The fact that he's saying we've got a third of a year supply, if they took all the sites
that we actually have put in our local plan and applied for them, we would have a lot
higher number.
But this is a site that's not in that plan, and I think weight should be given that we
have identified sites.
The fact that they haven't been taken up yet is a separate matter.
So I cannot support this.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:35:29
Sorry, I was going to ask that.
Thank you, Chairman.
Councillor Morgan.
Oh, sorry.
Have you any declarations of interest, mate?
Sorry, you were a little bit late.
Only one for the one in Chigwell.
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:35:43
and that's just because I'm on the planning committee for
Chiggle Parish but I wasn't at the meeting
when it was discussed.
Thank you.
And if I can go to Councillor Sheree
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:35:56
for now I'll come back to you.
Thank you.
Thank you chairman.
Thank you to the planning officer,
Cllr Razia Sharif - 0:36:00
to the resident speaker and to Councillor Dadd
for speaking on this application this evening.
I have to agree with Councillor Bassett
and with Councillor Matthews.
I think in some ways this application has been quite, it's been quite irresponsible
to bring this forward for all the reasons that we've already heard.
I'm not going to repeat them and waste time, but I cannot support this application.
And I mean I would like to ask the planning officer what weight did he give this application
in terms of unmet need compared to the green belt
and flood risk.
Now, do you wanna come back to that?
Sure, as I've shown in my slides,
Muhammad Rahman - 0:36:55
in terms of flood risk, the site itself,
where the current site is not at risk,
the council's brain has confirmed so,
they've confirmed there are no pollutants
and further details are to be finalised post consent which is not uncommon.
So there is no need for additional surveys, building regs to be presented as part of this application.
In terms of, yeah, needs, it does tilt the balance in favour.
It is given significant weight unfortunately in the planning world.
And yeah, it's difficult to defend, particularly when children are involved, so yeah.
Sorry, can I just come back? I think with respect to the Planning Officer, that's very,
Cllr Razia Sharif - 0:37:40
very poor. So I will not be supporting this application this evening.
Thank you. Councillor Morgan.
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:37:51
Thank you. I've got to say, I was very shocked when I was asked to step in. I drove down
there and I cannot work out how you're going to get a static caravan down that lane. I
can't get down there. Under paragraph 189 of the NPPF we're going to ruin all
the hedgerows. It's a totally unsuitable site. We've also heard that it's six
miles from St Margaret's. St Margaret's hasn't got an A &E. So we're looking to go
to Princess Alexandra which is a lot lot further. It's just not a suitable site
for this and we do have quite a few travel sites I believe as we've just
within Eppin Forest but also within North Wilde and it's something that we
need to look at before we actually decide whether we're going to do this so
for those reasons I can't support it and I totally agree with
Councillor Matthews and Councillor Dadd. Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:38:54
Cllr Alan Lion - 0:39:08
Thank you Chairman, just a few points to make. I attended the site visit and there is a static
caravan already there so the lanes are big enough to get the caravans in. However, the
foul water treatment plant was in place but it was only operating at the present over
on the generator and there was also some additional wiring into the existing
electrical system which I think could be an additional risk. The site itself had
been prepared but I think one of the areas that I will consider refusing
this is on the damage to the hedgerows and the access. I think that's probably
one of the main issues but in terms of the actual site itself if you look at
the conditions that have been applied through the report many of the things
that have been discussed this evening are covered by those conditions I mean
one of the most important one is looking at the electrical site as well as some
of the other conditions but I think that was condition four is yeah it's a fell
is the fair water, yeah. And it was also looking at number eight at the electrical provision
and charging point. So there's quite a lot of information that has been missed that needs
to be covered by conditions. And I think that's something that could be considered and whether
members would consider deferring this on the basis of additional information or whether
the decision should be made one way or the other. Thank you Chairman. Thank you
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:41:03
Councillor Caulfman. Thank you chair I was just going to come in quickly to say
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:41:07
thank you to the parish council and to the local speaker.
I just wanted to say thank you to the to the parish clerk and to the local
and indeed to Councillor Dadd for their very thorough run -through of the site.
I think for the reasons that my colleagues said, I definitely would not be supporting this
and I would not agree under any circumstances to go with a deferral.
I think we've got enough in front of us to make a decision in the here and the now
and we should be confident to take this to the next stage if we have to.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:41:53
Thank you. Councillor Lisa Morgan.
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:41:56
Thank you. I just wanted to double cheque. Just as they started, I was over there. So
can I vote in this? I was actually in the chamber. I just wasn't seated.
The view was here for the beginning of the presentation.
Yeah, I only said welcome, Councillors. Is that okay, Mike? Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:42:12
Right, so the members, the...
Sorry, sorry, Mo, sorry, I couldn't see your hand on that.
Just wanted to clarify about the hedges.
Muhammad Rahman - 0:42:28
So in terms of any removal of hedges and the discussions around it,
it's not part of this application.
They're not proposing as part of any of the plans.
It's outside the Red Line side.
Any removal of the ancient hedges are covered by the hedgerow act
1997 if they do need to remove it, they will need to apply through the current consent beyond the time regime
On this ground
There is enough information to
Make a decision tonight
and the suggested conditions are not uncommon
for them, for further deuces to be sought post consent.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
I believe that the thing with the removal of the hedges
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:43:19
was to do with the highways authorities request
that the vehicular visibility displays be provided,
which is obviously gonna cut back on the ancient
protected lane planting which they need to they need to get the necessary
consent to remove those hedges if they are required to be removed. The condition
doesn't mean they can remove the hedges they still need to get the required
consent under the hedgerow act and I believe it's a criminal offence if their ancient hedges are removed without the correct consent.
Muhammad Rahman - 0:43:56
right but that's a requirement of this though the condition states that they
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:44:02
that's got to be done for them to for us to grant permission.
Yeah but they have to get the consent. So permission is granted today. They have to apply to the treaty to get the hedges removed.
So if they can comply with this condition.
Can I say something on a point of order?
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:44:25
That communication I have from highways was it is the local planning authority's
responsibility for protected lanes and that comes under their policies so it is
still planning policies and it's quite clear in the motion which the transport
put by the applicant that displays will remove some of the ancient hedging. That is quite
definite.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:44:59
Thank you for that clarification, Councillor Burd. Members, any? Right, the Officer recommendation
and end is to approve with conditions and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
All those in favour please show. All those against. That's unanimous chair.
Thank you. Can we have a reason for refusal please.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:45:20
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:45:24
Councillor Matthews. Refusal due to unsuitable site, damage to the green belt,
damage to historic features and not appropriate services are the key reasons
I've got I don't know if anyone wants to add to that.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:45:40
Are we going with Councillor Matthews? There will be a seconder for that.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:45:46
Therefore that application has been refused.
Oh sorry should we go for all those in favour first?
Can we just write down what the reasons are?
It's very fast so I couldn't...
Sorry.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:46:03
Unsuitable site, damage to the green belt, damage to historic features and not appropriate
services within the unsuitable site, that's including obviously flood risks.
Damage to the green belt, damage to historic features, not suitable services, unsuitable
site.
Can I say something on a point of order?
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:46:25
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:46:28
I am not sure whether Councillors are aware that as from April, any appeal, you can't
add anything else to your reasons and I have got some strong reasons if you would like
to listen to them.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:46:39
Councillor Dadd.
No, sorry, Chairmen.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:46:44
The first one.
No, Chairmen.
Sorry.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:46:49
Sorry, no, Councillor Dadd's is not part of this committee.
It's up to the committee to come up with the reasons
that they want for the refusal.
And then we take the vote on
once they've decided the reasons, please.
Thank you very much.
Yes, quite right.
Amanda Apcar - 0:47:02
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:47:04
Councillor Lisa Morgan.
Did we have on the protected line?
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:47:08
And the protected hedge rise.
Sorry, I didn't hear if he said that or not.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:47:15
Members, would you like some more time to think of that?
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:47:28
Amanda Apcar - 0:47:37
Can members please be minded that if this goes to appeal, these reasons have to be defendable.
We can't just come up with a number of reasons, so could we please be mindful of the need
to be reasonable and robust?
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:47:53
If I can just come back in just to reassure my fellow committee members, all of the items
they are saying comes under unsuitable site.
So unsuitable site, damage to the green belt, damage to historic features and not the appropriate
services.
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:48:13
All those in favour of that please show.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:48:23
I was just going to express advice on different abilities.
Muhammad Rahman - 0:48:30
The first three, Councillor Maki has suggested possibly a case can be made.
It's just the last one around services.
services in terms of nearby schools, surgeries rather than power no -work and so on which
would not be defendable?
No, but that's a technical issue so that can be overcome.
You're referring to the schools and…
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:48:53
To clarify further, services I'm talking about, they're running off a generator,
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:48:57
they haven't got the sewage, so they've got foul water going into the ponds, they've
run off a generator, they haven't got the services there.
They can be overcome.
It's about health care and education.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:49:08
But on what we're looking at in front of us here,
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:49:12
we haven't got anything to say that they've been overcome.
It's normally would be covered by the conditions.
Muhammad Rahman - 0:49:22
There is a specific one around generators to be removed
and a main connexion provided,
but in terms of utilities access,
that is not defendable.
But the first three case can be made
around suitability of the site, harm to Greenbelt and heritage harm which can make preference
to the protected land.
That's it then, therefore that application has been refused. Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:49:48
The
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:50:35
The issues are all in one, so it's unsuitable site, damage to the green belt, damage to
historic features, damage to the protected lane, damage to protected hedgerows and unsuitable
due to unsatisfactory utility installations.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:50:54
Thank you.
Agenda item 9 has been withdrawn.

9 EPF 1495 25 - 72 Grange Court, High Road, Chigwell

So we move on to agenda item 10.

10 EPF 1598 25 - 27 Carroll Hill, Loughton, IG10 1NL

On pages 140 to 150 of the agenda, EPF 1598 stroke 25.
No, it's not.
It's 2527 Carroll Hill Loughton, IG 10 1NL.
and Suki you're going to take us over that one. Thank you chairman welcome members. Planning
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:51:29
permission is sought for the demolition of an existing two -storey detached
dwelling and construction of a replacement two -storey six bedroom
dwelling incorporating front and rear dormers to provide accommodation within
the roof space. Loughton town council objects to the proposed third floor
front and rear dormers, considering them to be out of keeping with the character of the
area and harmful to the street scene.
Concerns are also raised regarding the potential presence of bats.
A total of six public objections have been received, citing excessive height and overbearing
scale, loss of light and privacy, harm to the predominantly two -storey character of
the area.
Additional concerns relate to insufficient parking provision for a six -bedroom dwelling,
the likelihood.
Members of the public, hello.
In the public gallery can you keep your voices down please.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:52:33
Thank you.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:52:37
Sorry, thank you.
Additional concerns relate to insufficient parking provision for a six bedroom dwelling.
The likelihood of increased on street parking traffic impacts potential effects on the adjacent
forest.
This slide shows the aerial view of the site.
The application site is located on the southwestern side of Carroll Hill and comprises a two storey
The surrounding area is characterised by substantial detached properties arranged in a linear ribbon
form, with consistent front building lines, generous plot widths and spacing, and varied
mix of architectural styles, scales and roof forms. Front dormers are an established and
recurring feature within the streetscape. The site is not listed and does not lie in
area.
This slide shows the aerial view.
The application site is located on the southwestern side of Carroll Hill and currently comprises
a detached two -storey, five -bedroom dwelling within the large residential plot.
The surrounding area is characterised by substantial detached properties arranged in a linear ribbon
form with consistent front building lines, generous plot widths, spacing and varied mix
of architectural styles, gals and roof forms.
Front dormers are an established and reoccurring feature within the streetscape.
The site is not listed and does not lie within the conservation area.
This slide shows the existing layer of the house.
This slide shows photos of properties on Carroll Hill which have front doormer protections.
The application property is shown in the top right corner of the slide.
The bottom right shows an example of a two -storey detached home with second floor front dormers
on Carroll Hill. This slide shows the approved dwelling at number 25 Carroll Hill under
construction which adjoins the northern boundary of the application site. It is 35 centimetres
taller than the application before you. This slide shows the street scene. The red line shows
the position of the existing house.
Sorry, the red line here.
The proposed house still follows the slope of the road
in terms of design and appearance.
The replacement dwelling retains the established building
line space and spacing, reflects the character
of large detached homes along Carroll Hill
and incorporates dormers which are a common feature
of the street.
The revised height is comparable to neighbouring properties
including number 25, which already has permission for a larger replacement dwelling.
Officers are satisfied that the proposal complies with local plan policies DM9 and DM10 of the MPPF.
Regarding neighbouring amenities, separation distances are sufficient to avoid unacceptable loss of light, privacy or overbearing impact,
with flank windows controlled by condition. No amenity -based refusal reasons are identified.
The dwelling meets national space standards.
There are no protected trees.
The front boundary tree is retained
and conditions will secure tree protection
and additional landscaping.
Highways raise no concerns
with the existing access retained
and three onsite parking spaces meeting standards.
Finally, ecological matters,
including potential bat interest,
will be addressed through further surveys
and mitigation secured by conditions 12 and 13 on pages 148 to 9 of the agenda.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
We have public speakers on this.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:56:48
The first being objector Victoria Hallett in person.
You have three minutes.
Thank you.
Public Speaker - 0:56:55
Good evening.
I'm a neighbour and I'm objecting to this application.
I've lived opposite this house for most of my life.
I have four points to make. My first point would be that the existing house is a lovely house.
It's characterful, early 1900s arts and crafts style house and to knock it down would be a great loss to the road, to us as neighbours and to the character of Loughton as a whole.
Why would we knock down a unique pretty home to put up yet another generic huge block?
My second point would be regarding the proposed scale. The new house will be a
three -storey house. All other homes in the area tend to be two storeys with maybe
an attic conversion. This would be three complete four -height storeys which means
the proposed roof line will be much higher than the existing roof line. In
fact it's half a storey higher than the horizontal line of the existing roof
which means the current skyline will be hugely affected for us and makes the
overall scale of the house out of keeping with the rest of the street scene.
Third point is the front dormers and the loss of privacy.
The proposed design has two dormers overlooking the front of the property.
This is not in keeping with other houses in the area,
which tends to have two storeys and an attic conversion involving
dormers to the back overlooking their own gardens.
This proposal will have two dormers looking straight into
gardens of my house and number 41 next door to me. Currently we have total
privacy in our back gardens and this will be completely lost if front dormers
are permitted. I have a swimming pool that's been there since the 70s at the
very bottom of my garden which has always been completely private. If dormers
are allowed over the front they will be able to look straight into my pool area
and our privacy will be lost. Please can the front dormers be removed. They were
disallowed on the house next door,
which is currently being built, number 25.
My final point is to reiterate that, yes,
the ash tree on the front boundary, please can it be kept?
I see it is now on the revised plans to be retained,
which is very good news to me.
It's a tree which has been annually pollarded
over the last five decades,
and is a handsome tree providing screening for us.
It is very important to us and the street scene in general
that this tree is not removed.
Thank you, that's my point.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. If you could turn your microphone off please.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:59:25
Thank you. We have now Councillor Carol Davis from Loughton Town Council. We're going three
Public Speaker - 0:59:38
minutes Councillor. Loughton Town Council wishes to object to this application at 27 Carroll Hill.
We ask members not to accept the officer recommendation today because the application
remains unresolved on two important planning grounds. First, the impact of the proposed
bulk and roof form on the character of this part of Carroll Hill and second, the absence
of completed ecological survey evidence before permission is granted. Carroll Hill is not
a uniform road but the officer report itself recognises that the area has a particular
character, large detached houses, generous plots, consistent front setbacks and
importantly gaps between buildings. That openness is part of the style of the
road. The proposed replacement dwelling is materially larger than the existing
house, introduces front and rear dormers serving roof accommodation and would
appear as a much more dominant building in the street scene.
The town council's concern is that the scale, roof, massing,
and the third floor dormer layout
would erode the established spacious character
of this part of Carroll Hill and be contrary to policy DEM9,
requiring a development to achieve high quality
design that contributes rather than overrides
local character.
The second and equally serious issue is ecology.
The officer report records that the submitted preliminary ecological appraisal and roof assessment states that three bat emergence or re -entry surveys are required during the active bat season to confirm the likely presence or absence of roosting bats.
The same report says local planning authority requires further detailed ecological information,
particularly for bats, which are European protected species.
However, this recommendation has yet to be acted upon, rather relying on conditions after the event.
That is the wrong sequence. The problem is timing.
The Council should know whether bats are present before it decides whether demolition is acceptable.
If that evidence is left to a later condition, members are being asked to approve principle of demolition
without first knowing whether a protected species would be harmed or what mitigation would actually be required.
The town council therefore asks members to refuse or defer this application until the bat surveys and full ecological implications assessment has been completed, submitted and properly assessed.
If members are minded to approve despite that, the Town Council would ask for the strongest possible conditions,
no demolition, site clearance or vegetation removal until all bat surveys are complete,
full ecological mitigation and enhancement secured, a detailed soft landscaping scheme,
strict tree protection and no enlargement under permitted development rights.
However, the town council's primary position is clear. The application is
premature and harmful to the local character. It should not be approved
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:02:52
today. Thank you very much indeed. We now have the applicant, Nick Hill -Amun.
You have three minutes. Hi Chairman, thank you and members of the committee and the
Public Speaker - 1:03:03
councillors. My name is Nick Hill, I'm representing and I'm the applicant along
with my wife Brinda. Just to give you some background, we've been in the local
community for the last 10 years.
Our three children are grown up and really love
where we live today.
My wife works in healthcare and actually she's a trustee
at the Epping Forest Citizens Advice.
I'm working in climate tech and sustainability,
and also I'm a local trust governor at a local school.
So we do take the feedback and the views of the local,
the LPA, the local committees, the planning committee,
and local residents really seriously.
And, you know, that's really, really important to us.
And so through the resubmission of the application,
we've done our level best to ensure that we really address
some of the major points.
So we have reduced the roofline, as has been stated,
so that it's actually lower than the neighbouring properties.
We've reduced the size of the dormers to respect the privacy.
We, in terms of the style of the house, we understand and really
appreciate the existing character and what we want to
do is replicate character into the new property.
We love period properties and that's what we want to do both
internally and externally.
But really what we're going for is bringing an element of
sustainability to the property to really improve the
sustainability credentials that the property can have
in the future. The landscape and gardening is really important. Our three kids can't
wait to be in that garden and using that garden, so we expect and plan to keep all of the garden
as it is. The trees are remaining intact, both at the front and the rear. We will provide
additional parking space, so I think originally it was two, and we've got space for four -park
car cars, but we only have a car, so it's not like we need the space all the time. And
And then, of course, we are taking into account the report
from the preliminary roost assessment, and actually our
bat surveys are starting this Friday, and so they will
conclude within three sets.
Within, I guess, that will be within nine weeks, they will
conclude, and we will have a report there.
So we are taking action on every step that's been outlined in the
report and the feedback to ensure that this application can
satisfy and
You know fit within the community and respect the community that we live in. Thank you
Thank you
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:05:34
ward councillors
Councillor whisking
Thank You chairman
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:05:40
Caro Hill is one of the
Remaining roads which has character properties on it and it's it is disappointing to see another character property disappear
We've observed it several times on
in Loudon, especially on roads like Walton Hill.
I fear this application is one of the old tricks where you put in an application, it
is a revised application, you put in an application for something that is way too big, you then
say you've consulted and amend your application and then you actually try to get approval
on something which is equally unreasonable on the grounds that you have consulted.
So I think we should bear that in mind.
The main objection is to me regarding the front dormers.
They are out of character.
The pictures which were shown of other buildings on Carroll Hill are new developments,
which are down the road and down the hill,
and this particular part of the hill is not characterised by front dormers.
A rear dormer is perfectly sufficient in my view.
A couple of points.
One of the speakers noted about the tree.
From what I understand, and maybe the Planning Officer can correct me,
but the ash tree is actually due to disappear.
It is the magnolia which is in the front crescent,
as I believe from what I looked in the plan is the tree which will remain.
Now I would be happy to stand corrected on it.
It's also slightly disappointing to see that the Planning Officer keeps referring in the reports
to number 29 as being the new build next door.
It is not, it's actually number 25 and I hope this is not the only detail that the officers
have overlooked.
The town council say this application fails policy DM9, yet the officer says it meets
DM9.
So who's right?
I'm not sure.
It just shows that this process is subjective and why we're all sitting here today and other
things come through planning committees because they are subjective.
On those grounds, I think the point is about these dormers.
I urge the committee reject this application unless those dormers are removed and respect
the privacy of others and the character of the road.
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:07:57
Members, Councillor Cohen.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Barbara Cohen - 1:08:03
So the existing house at the moment is a two -storey house with 15 rooms in total.
The proposed new house is a massive 38 rooms on three storeys.
Sadly, permission was given next door at number 25 Carroll Hill, EPF 076025 on 27 May 2025,
for an overdevelopment and dominant new house.
Neighbours feel cheated that permission was given for the house next door at 25 by officers
without it going to a planning permission.
This proposed gross overdevelopment will cause harm for this part of Carroll Hill which has
an open character.
There are four houses opposite this part of Carroll Hill and are all detached and
two -storey. Basically the proposed house is massive and out of character for the
road. Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:09:09
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:09:14
Councillor Lisa Morgan. Thank you. Could we have some clarification on the tree
whether it's the magnolia that's staying or the ash tree first of all that's my
first point, please.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:09:30
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:09:39
Up the top of the hill there are no front dormers and I am really concerned that it
not in keeping and that is a pure overdevelopment of the property. I appreciate that there's
some sustainability that's going on there which is really good. It's really good to
actually hear for once because normally we have these new bills that have been put up
and they don't look at that and that's something that we should be pushing as a committee that
we make sure that there is some sustainability. But I really feel that it's an overdevelopment
and not in keeping, especially with front dormers,
but it would be nice when you found it,
if you could come back and just let me know on the tree.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any further members?
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:10:25
Councillor Shri.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Razia Sharif - 1:10:30
And thank you to all the speakers this evening.
Having looked over my shoulder to Councillor Matthews screen,
we can see front dormers on some of those properties.
Not only that, if we have already given permission
to number 25 for a large development. We've already set a precedent. It would be rather
unfair now to say this application can't go through because it's over development. There's
a big property next door. I can't see a single planning reason to turn this down, I'm sorry.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:11:03
Thank you. In fairness, Councillor, we can only go with what we've got in front of us
and not what's gone before. So we're judging this application on its merits. Thank you,
Thank you.
Councillor Matthews.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:11:15
I'm much of the same opinion as my Councillor next to me, Councillor Shrief.
I think the argument is being made in the Chamber tonight about it not being in keeping
and not matching the street scene, but the street scene is rapidly changing.
So, while we can't judge this application on what's in front of us, if the argument
is being made around what is happening along the street and it being in keeping, then we
do need to at least view what has been approved adjacent.
I looked at the planning history of the one at 25 and it was a much larger building which
got rejected in 23, then came back for submission at a slightly reduced size which then got
approved. Obviously there's the development the other side at 29 that
has been approved as well. I don't see any planning reasons that we can refuse
this so I'll be supporting the officers recommendation on this currently. Thank
you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:12:27
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:12:28
It's an ash tree. It's going to be protected.
be down there.
Councillor Loyne.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:12:33
Just a point that people are talking about three storeys.
Cllr Alan Lion - 1:12:37
I mean, if there are dormers, then they are by their nature more than two storeys.
So I don't see that's a valid argument that that would naturally apply for any development
that has dormers on the top floor.
So that would be a natural three storey building.
Thank you.
I'll let you come back, Councillor Whiskin.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:12:57
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:12:59
Can we just clarify which tree is going to remain?
Because on the website there's a document called Amended Plans and it says, there's
a picture which says existing tree to remain, which is against the text, is against the
crescent of the in and out drive, the proposed crescent which matches what's there today.
That is a magnolia tree.
The ash tree is on the boundary of the property.
So please can we have clarity as to which tree is going to remain?
I'll just share my...
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:13:32
Councillor Kaufman.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:13:35
Thank you, Chair. Learning from my mistakes I've said closer to it this time.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:13:39
I'm very concerned about the front dormers.
At that height I think that it is too close.
I mean, you have a very good view to see straight down into the neighbour in front's private
immunity space.
I think that that is something that we really should consider.
The house that's a bit further down the hill, which is completely grossly out of scale,
I don't know how it was consented it was, but it's in a different plane.
So I think we do need to take that point a little bit more seriously than we have so
far.
And I do struggle with the concept that it's more sustainable to knock down a house that's
already there.
And that is, I won't be too grandiose in it, but I think that must be one of the prettiest
houses still standing in the area.
And I think it would be a shame for the echoes of the storey of that house to be lost carte
blanche.
I don't think there's anything in the new proposal that echoes that.
I might be wrong, but I don't think there is anything there that's similar or echoes
that storey, as I said.
So I would struggle to support it in that current iteration.
I appreciate that it is obviously a developed site, but I think we could do something that
could be done that's better that respects the neighbour opposite and also the locality
there.
Thank you.
Have we got a definitive answer on the tree?
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:15:26
So the T10 is the ash tree which is shown in this corner here, if you can see my cursor.
I'm going to go back and look at the plans.
It's not shown to be removed so I'm assuming it's the one to be retained.
And
so what true what true is it?
It's the Astra.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:16:16
All those in favour, please show.
That's six.
All those against?
That's three.
Abstentions?
None.
Therefore, that application is approved.
Thank you.

11 EPF 2254 25 - 120 Valley Hill, Loughton

Cllr Steven Heather - 1:16:37
We now go on to agenda item 11 which is EPF stroke 2254 stroke 25 120 Valley Hill Loughton
on pages 151 to 162 of your agenda.
Oh sorry yes Councillor Whiskin is now taking the place of Councillor Cohen as it falls
of in her ward. Alex, if you take us through this please.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:17:33
Thank you, Chairman. This is the presentation for Item 11 on your agenda, Application Reference
EPF 225425 120 Valley Hill, Loughton. The site is outlined in red on this slide. The
site lies within the urban area of Loughton and it's a corner plot at the junction of
Valley Hill and Greenstead Road. It features a single storey dwelling on a corner plot
which we consider to be an anomaly to what is otherwise a very large building. The site
residential area comprised of terraced and semi -detached two -storey dwellings. Along
both Valley Hill and Greensford Road there is a general consistency to the building line
with the setback from the highway with grass frontages. There are some examples of street
trees. Front boundary treatments typically feature low walls and fences with some hedgerows.
The photo on the slide shows the application site with the hoarding around the outside.
The proposal seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing single storey
dwelling and the construction of two two -storey self -built dwellings.
The dwellings would be a two bedroom unit and a one bedroom unit.
Both of these would comply with the nationally described space standards and would front
Valley Hill with private gardens to the rear.
A new access, a vehicle access and drop curb would be on the front along Valley Hill and
this would provide access to the three proposed parking spaces.
So two for the two bedroom unit and one for the one bedroom unit.
The two photos there show, the top one is taken from Greenstead Road looking up towards
the site, so there is a slight levels change and the bottom photo is taken looking across
the junction.
So Greenstead Road is running into the photograph effectively and Valley Hill is in the foreground.
So, as set out in more detail in the officer report, this application is a revised scheme
following a refuse scheme in 2025 which was dismissed at appeal. The floor plans on the
changes to note are the physical detachment from the existing two -storey dwelling number
122 and the reduction in the size and depth of the corner most unit on Greensdood Road
and the reduction in the number of bedrooms. So previously that was a two bedroom house,
it's now going to be a one bedroom unit. So on this slide you can see the proposed elevations
of the current scheme and the refuse scheme at the bottom.
The current scheme has taken on board comments from the planning inspector, in particular
the design of the house and houses has been given more visual interest in terms of their
form, their architecture and their visual coherence. The hip roof of the corner unit
has reduced the overall massing of the proposal and the scheme has been reduced in height
and width overall. So in conclusion, and I set out in more detail
within the committee report, it is considered that the proposed development would have an
acceptable design and would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the local
area. It would not harm the amenities of number 122 by way of loss of light or outlook and
would have an acceptable relationship with all other nearby and neighbouring residential
properties. The proposed development would have a new access and drop kerb off Valley
Hill which would provide three parking spaces which we consider to meet the parking standards
in this sustainable location and we consider that it's got a safe and suitable access.
There's no objection from the local highway authority.
On the basis of the above, the officer recommendation is for approval, subject to the conditions
set out in the agenda and the completion of a legal agreement in relation to the FSAC.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have public speakers on this.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:22:57
First being Councillor Carol Davis from Loughton Town Council.
Again, I remind you, you have three minutes.
Public Speaker - 1:23:04
The Loughton Town Council objects to this application at 120 Valley Hill.
Although this application is an improvement on the earlier refuse scheme, it is still
far from acceptable.
The proposal remains an overdevelopment of a cramped corner plot.
It still harms the street scene, gives insufficient weight to biodiversity and most importantly
raises serious highway safety concerns.
This site sits at the junction of Valley Hill and Greensed Road, close to Whitebridge Primary
School.
Vehicles would enter and reverse from the proposed parking bays directly onto Valley
Hill at a point where there is already traffic speed, constrained visibility, school footfall
and parking pressure.
The officer report records our concerns that vehicles park on pavements and crossovers,
and that once the double yellow lines are properly reinstated after the resurfacing,
they may make the proposed access difficult or even impractical to use.
We recognise that Essex Highways has not been ejected, however that is not proof of safety.
Members must decide whether this access will operate safely in the real conditions of this
This is not simply a question of whether three parking spaces can be fitted onto the plan.
The real question is whether those spaces can be used safely with pedestrians, children,
parked vehicles and turning movements all interacting in a confined space.
Our position is that the proposed access and parking arrangement is in the wrong place.
Parking would be better located on the Greenstead roadside of the plot.
The alternative has not been properly resolved, so members are being asked to approve a risky
arrangement when a safer layout may be available. There are also design and
character concerns. The officer report accepts that the area has consistent
setback building lines, grassed frontages, street trees and low boundary
treatments creating an open character. Two cramped dwellings, parking hard
standing boundary treatment and reduced garden space would amount to
overdevelopment of this prominent corner plot. Biodiversity has also not been
properly addressed. We objected that the application failed to address biodiversity net gain and
that no planning scheme had been submitted. For a corner site where openness of planting
and public -facing character are central to acceptability, those details should be agreed
from the start, not left mainly to future conditions. One extra dwelling is a modest
benefit. It does not outweigh the real harm of putting a permanent development at a hazardous
junction close to a primary school with unresolved access,
character, and biodiversity concerns.
We therefore ask members to refuse the application or,
at minimum, defer it for safer access layout.
For full external layout drawings,
clarity on reinstated highway markings,
and a proper landscape and biodiversity scheme.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:26:09
We now have Daniel Brandon, the architect.
He gains three minutes, please.
Thank you.
Public Speaker - 1:26:16
Good evening, Chair and members.
My name is Daniel Brandon and I appear tonight as a planning agent in support of this application.
My clients have owned this site for a considerable number of years.
During that time, the existing single -storey dwelling has fallen into a poor state of repair.
It is boarded up, dilapidated, and as the officer's report acknowledges, it forms an
anomaly in what is otherwise a well -established residential street scene of terraced and semi -detached
two -storey properties.
This proposal is an opportunity to finally put that right.
This is a self -built application with very personal motivation.
My clients wish to provide each of their elders children with a home of their own, helping
the next generation onto the property ladder while remaining close to the family.
That human storey matters and I would ask the committee to keep that in mind.
On the planning merits, the officer's report recommends approval and for good reason.
The scheme has been carefully revised in response to the previous appeal decision.
The ridge height, the depth of the new dwellings have been reduced to address previous issues,
and the Inspector and Highway Authority have raised no objection to access or parking.
The officer is satisfied the previous harms have been overcome and I agree.
The officer also confirms that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five -year housing
land supplier, meaning the tilted balance applies.
Even this modest scheme of one net additional dwelling contributes meaningfully to housing
delivery in a sustainable, well -connected location.
I respectfully urge the Committee to follow the Officer's recommendation and approve this
application.
And I'd just like to add as well, because this is a self -built application, there's
no biodiversity or BNG required with that.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:28:26
Thank you. All councillors. Councillor Cohen. Thank you, chair. The proposed
self -built two -storey houses would replace a single -storey building. If one
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:28:36
Cllr Tippy Cornish - 1:28:40
house was built instead of two, it would be much less bulkier in Greenstead Road
and would not protrude onto the pavement as the proposal here. If two houses were
squeezed in the second house would be on the edge of the pavement and nearer the
road than other houses in Greensden Road. The building line in Greensden Road
would not be respected. In my mind one house of two -storey in this location
would be a far better proposal than two two two two -storey houses. Thank you.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:29:18
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:29:22
Thank you. Members, Councillor Whiskin. Thank you, Chairman. Can I ask the officer to bring
up a slide, a document from the website. It's plan PL -6301 underscore 18. It's similar to
a visual which we were shown a few minutes ago and it concerns mainly the in and out
access, sorry, the access across the crossover.
This application is simply overdevelopment.
I mean, the plot is too small for these two dwellings.
And as my colleague, Councillor Cohen said,
it's far more reasonable to look at one property on this
and it will be squeezed and cramped on
and will be out of character with the rest of the road.
There are no other houses on corner plots on Valley Hill which come so close to the
pavement.
They all have been set back with a significant amount of verge between them, between the
pavement and the houses, and that should be kept.
In fact, directly opposite on the other corner, there's houses 118A and B, which are clearly
additions since the original build and they also are respecting the setting back from
the road, from the pavement and they also have no crossovers and no access.
In regard to the parking which we can now see on the picture above, it is perilously
close to that junction for one access, let alone two,
cars would be reversing out onto Valley Hill.
And for those of you who know Valley Hill,
it is probably at one of the fastest points from the hill.
And it would be very, very dangerous, I believe,
to have those accesses there.
It would be far more practical to scale back
the development of one house and put access
from Greenstead Road into a driveway
onto that property which is now currently the garden.
We're assuming Essex Highways have looked at it.
There are many occasions we doubt Essex Highways
have done anything other than look on Google Earth,
but surely it would be far too dangerous
to put crossovers on this junction.
I mean, this application we have heard
has been rumbling on for years.
If you look on Google Earth,
you'll see it's been going on for several years
and that this is not a reason to simply cave in
and approve it now because this overdevelopment
could be scaled back and it'd be far more reasonable
to put one property on that plot of reasonable size.
Again, I would echo what Councillor Cohen said,
the marginal gain of one property on this site
could be at the expense of lives down the road
because of the danger to public safety.
I will not be supporting this application
and I will be voting against it
and I'd urge others to do the same.
Councillor Lisa Morgan.
Thank you.
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:32:40
I totally agree with Councillor CUMMING and Councillor Whiskin
also we're losing the Greens verge and the tree,
the poor lollipop lady that crosses there
that takes her life in her own hands
because it's a really dangerous junction there.
It's just not suitable.
And to have somebody reverse now onto a corner of a junction
just in my mind just doesn't make sense.
I'm also not very happy with what we've heard about,
the fact that we don't need anything for the biodiversity gain
because it's a new build.
We should be encouraging people to look at this,
not to say it's not accepted.
Sorry, do you mind? Thank you.
It's something that we as a committee should be looking at and should be encouraging people.
EFDC should be encouraging everybody to look at all these biodiversity gains that we can
help with. But not only that, it's just the most inappropriate place to have cars reversing
out onto a main road and it would be better off if we were in Greensdead Road and it wouldn't
be such an overdevelopment to have one property there and they get in and out onto Greensdead
road where it would just be better for the children going up and down there and for the
residents themselves. So I won't be supporting this. Thank you.
Thank you. If Alex, you want to come back on the biodiversity?
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:34:01
Alex Sadowsky - 1:34:06
So I completely understand your comments, Councillor, about biodiversity net gain, but
the exemptions are set out in the regulations and that does include self -build and custom -build
housing which this application would be. So that's outside of our local plan policy. We
have to accept that it's an exemption in this particular case.
Did you want to come back?
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:34:27
Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:34:30
Thank you very much. I do appreciate that and I do know that, but it's something that
we should be encouraging. It doesn't matter if it's not in our policy, we should still
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:34:39
be encouraging it from people. So thank you. I do appreciate what the policy says.
Councillor Caulfman.
Thank you, Chair.
I was just going to pick up the first point about it's a bit of an eyesore.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:34:46
It didn't do what's happened to it by itself.
There was once a magnificent tree on the site and it wasn't a natural thing that suddenly
a whacking great big purple hoarding has been there for years.
I object to the, it seems, I don't like the plan saying that the green space will be removed
and the tree will be removed.
I mean it's not within the gift of the applicant to suggest that.
That is a separate stage that needs to be determined.
I do quite like the irony of the wooden post that is on the verge, which I presume was
put there to defend against people parking on the pavement, which you can see on the
Google Street View.
No one in their right mind would think that it's safe to have someone drive into there,
which inevitably they will drive in, sweep across, and then they'll be reversing out
onto the public highway.
I believe that would be just a breach of the highway code as it stands, but I think that
that's something that really does need to be rethought.
My colleagues have said about access from the rear, I think that would be a good idea
to take that forward.
And I don't believe anywhere locally to there, there are hip gable ends.
I think most of the properties on that locality are gable ended.
Can I ask what the status is of the property next door?
Is that within the same ownership or is that separate ownership?
Where the demolition, because this has to be demolished and pulled away from the neighbouring
So that's outside the red line, Councillor.
So we assume it's not in the red line.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:36:23
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:36:27
So therefore, has there been any study of the loss of light into the property next door?
Because there are windows on that gable end.
Alex Sadowsky - 1:36:36
So as it's set out in the officer report, there are two first floor windows, as you
rightly point out.
These are believed to be secondary windows to bedrooms.
So the bedrooms have forward facing and rear facing windows
which are their primary outlook.
So there would be an impact but we don't consider
that to be a harmful impact.
I think I would.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:37:01
I think I could see I would support an application that came
forward for a single dwelling that pulled away from that house.
I just can't see that it's suitable for two dwellings.
One, yes, with suitable steps taken to overcome what I think is an extremely dangerous highways.
Thank you.
Councillor Matthews.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:37:26
I don't think there's many reasons, if any, to refuse this, although I've just got one
big issue with the highways, which other councillors have highlighted.
But when looking on Street View, that corner junction is actually painted with double yellow
lines. So it's clearly deemed dangerous enough not to have a vehicle parked on that corner.
Yet highways are now saying it's okay for a vehicle to back out across that verge. That
just doesn't seem consistent to me whatsoever. I really struggle to see how highways can say
that they've got no objections to this.
As I say, you're gonna be crossing
what is currently marked as double yellow lines.
So, if it's deemed that the junction,
you can't park a vehicle on that junction
because it's gonna be too hazardous for other road users,
how can it possibly be safe enough
for vehicles to cross there?
That doesn't make sense to me at all.
So maybe the officer can give us some more information
or some more clarity around that point, please.
I think the Highway Code actually states that you can't park within 15 yards of a junction
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:38:47
anyway and they probably put the double yellow lines to reinforce that point that that is
a rule of the road.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:39:00
Just saying, if you have any points of question regarding highways matters, we can raise the
question to highways and get a response from them in regard to the B and G comments.
we can, there's a condition for landscaping, we can ask them to put additional planting
within the scheme to improve its biodiversity net gain. Obviously we won't be following
exactly the legislation, but it will be an increase to what is proposed currently. That
may be a way of reducing the concerns that you may have.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:39:44
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:39:45
Can the officer let me know if the highways team have actually been on site to see it
or if it's just been assessed off of a desktop site?
I don't know but I can cheque.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:39:56
It doesn't say so, although they would base their decisions on standards within the design
manual for roads and streets.
I think I remembered it.
I may have remembered it incorrectly, but the engineering guidance for highways, they
would have followed that and it would have because it met those
criteria's were laid within that they would have been satisfied that this is a
safe Junction. The experts in the road junction so I would assume that that it
is safe given it's a standard Junction.
Councillor Caulfield.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:40:47
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:40:49
If the car that's in the house that's crammed in on the corner on drawing 6301 underscore
18, if that person gets in and decides they're late for work and they're going to roar off,
with that currently shown, they could kill someone on that corner that's walking around
that corner.
It doesn't need to be explained any more clearly.
If that is a car that's hidden behind that bush and a kid comes around that corner that's
not thinking about what he's doing, there's a car.
And I refuse to accept that someone's looked at that and thinks, that's a great idea.
I just can't see it.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:41:35
Alex Sadowsky - 1:41:36
Just to go back on this highway point, my understanding is because the drop curb is
clear of the radius of the junction, so it's on the straight piece of curb, that is acceptable
in highway safety terms.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:41:54
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:42:01
Alex Sadowsky - 1:42:02
Paragraph 116 of the MPPF relates to highway safety impacts and this states that development
should only be prevented or refused on highway safety grounds if there would be an unacceptable
impacts on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network following
mitigation would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.
Now we don't consider that this would be severe insofar as there are – I have been to the
site and I have been along Valley Hill and there are examples of parking on the frontages.
The parking proposal in front of us shows the parking on the front.
We can't consider an alternative scheme here.
This is the proposal that's in front of us.
Councillor Whiskin.
Can I just come back on the point about a dropped kerb?
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:42:58
It is currently not a dropped kerb.
The application will require a dropped kerb.
So from what the planning office said,
I'm confused about what the stipulations are.
And I think it would be unreasonable to assume
that it's okay to apply for a drop curb
and then say they're good planning grounds
because there's a drop curb there.
Yeah, that'd be an application to Essex Highways anyway,
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:43:25
for the drop curb, I believe.
That's right, yeah.
Suki, would you?
Yes, as long as it's not a classified road,
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:43:33
then it would be to the highways authority and it would be in their discretion to approve
it.
And given that the highway authority consider it safe, I'm sure that they very likely would
approve it.
Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:43:52
It's a very difficult one when we're in this situation and we find ourselves in this situation
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:43:56
and I think far too often with highways
and not giving us thorough, clear information,
just they've got no issue with it.
It's often that we're finding ourselves in a situation
where they say we've got no issues
and then yet as councillors with the local knowledge
and local experience of the road network and the site,
we say there is an issue with it.
And obviously this always leads to a bit of conflict.
So I think given the options in front of us,
there's an option,
if there's not an option to defer it
and gain more information from highways
or more justification around why they believe
this isn't a hazard or danger,
then I think I wouldn't be able to support this application.
But is that a possibility if it was deferred?
Could highways provide additional information
to provide us with more clarity around the hazards associated with this?
I think that's a good idea. If that's your concern for the application, I would suggest
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:45:02
that we go with your suggestion and we consult higher priority authority and bring it back
to members with their advice. Because obviously we want to reduce having to go to appeal and
then they provide the evidence at a later stage.
Sorry, I'm here with the ball.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:45:29
Councillor Besser.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 1:45:35
Sorry, this one it's a case of not only safety on the highway.
It is pedestrian safety because if the drawing I've seen there
is a hedgerow right on the corner.
The car is hidden behind the hedge.
It's a pavement.
Car coming out of there.
If someone's walking around that corner, he would not see them.
And if it's a child, he definitely wouldn't see them if they're on their way to the school.
You know, I understand the development, but I do have these concerns over pedestrian safety.
Councillor Whiskin.
Thank you.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:46:14
If we are going to get further information from highways,
I would suggest that there's also a speed loop put in there
to cheque what sort of speeds are being recorded,
because that is a notoriously fast part of Valley Hill.
We couldn't suggest a speed hump,
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:46:33
because it's only one additional dwelling.
I said a speed loop, where they put wires across the road
and measure the speeds of cars.
not a speed hump, a loop, a wire loop to measure speeds.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:46:48
It has been suggested that we defer this item to gain further information from highways
regarding their slant on the proximity of the junction to the proposed drop curb.
You are proposing that?
Is there a seconder for that?
So all those in, sorry, did you want to speak beforehand?
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:47:11
Just to say that I propose that we defer the application for the reasons set up by the
Chair.
So, members, those in favour of deferral, please show.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:47:17
Unanimous.
Cllr Steven Heather - 1:47:23
That item has therefore been deferred to allow highways to come back with a fuller report.
Is there any other business?

12 Any other business

There's no other business, Chair.
Thank you. I therefore close this meeting at 2047.
Thank you. Oh, and thank you all for being a wonderful committee, because I'm sure this is my last one.
Amanda Apcar
Principal Planning Solicitor
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Amanda Apcar
Cllr Richard Bassett
District councillor for Roydon and Lower Nazeing ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Richard Bassett
Cllr Barbara Cohen
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Barbara Cohen
Cllr Tippy Cornish
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Tippy Cornish
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
Cllr Steven Heather
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Will Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Alan Lion
District councillor for Grange Hill ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Alan Lion
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
Muhammad Rahman
Senior Planning Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Muhammad Rahman
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 Graham Wiskin
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Graham Wiskin