Planning Committee B - Wednesday 3 June 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee B
Wednesday, 3rd June 2026 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Will Kauffman
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Geoff Shaw
  2. Cllr Will Kauffman
  3. Cllr Will Kauffman
  4. Public Speaker
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Will Kauffman
  7. Cllr Richard Bassett
  8. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  9. Cllr Will Kauffman
  10. Cllr Geoff Shaw
  11. Cllr Ken Williamson
  12. Cllr Will Kauffman
  13. Cllr Geoff Shaw
  14. Cllr Will Kauffman
  15. Cllr Jodie Lucas
  16. Cllr Will Kauffman
  17. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  18. Cllr Will Kauffman
  19. Cllr Clive Amos
  20. Cllr Will Kauffman
  21. Cllr Mary Dadd
  22. Cllr Will Kauffman
  23. Cllr Richard Bassett
  24. Cllr Will Kauffman
  25. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  26. Cllr Will Kauffman
  27. Cllr Jodie Lucas
  28. Cllr Will Kauffman
  29. Cllr Mary Dadd
  30. Cllr Will Kauffman
  31. Cllr Ken Williamson
  32. Cllr Will Kauffman
  33. Cllr Ken Williamson
  34. Cllr Will Kauffman
  35. Cllr Will Kauffman
Share this agenda point
  1. Public Speaker
  2. Cllr Will Kauffman
  3. Cllr Ken Williamson
  4. Cllr Will Kauffman
  5. Cllr Jodie Lucas
  6. Cllr Will Kauffman
  7. Cllr Jodie Lucas
  8. Cllr Will Kauffman
  9. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  10. Cllr Mary Dadd
  11. Cllr Will Kauffman
  12. Cllr Mary Dadd
  13. Marie-Claire Tovey
  14. Cllr Will Kauffman
  15. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  16. Cllr Will Kauffman
  17. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  18. Cllr Will Kauffman
  19. Marie-Claire Tovey
  20. Amanda Apcar
  21. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  22. Amanda Apcar
  23. Cllr Will Kauffman
  24. Cllr Chris Whitbread
  25. Cllr Will Kauffman
  26. Cllr Ken Williamson
  27. Cllr Will Kauffman
  28. Cllr Mary Dadd
  29. Cllr Jodie Lucas
  30. Cllr Will Kauffman
  31. Cllr Mary Dadd
  32. Cllr Jodie Lucas
  33. Cllr Will Kauffman
  34. Cllr Will Kauffman
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mary Dadd
  2. Cllr Will Kauffman
  3. Webcast Finished

1 WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:00:00
Good evening everybody. Welcome to planning committee B, Wednesday 3rd of June 2026. It's
the first sitting of the new committee B. Let me just first read the webcasting introduction
for the benefit of everybody, which is that 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,
your consent is 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 activate their
microphones before speaking and turn them off when
they have finished.
Advice for public and speakers at planning committees is set out at pages 3 to 4 of the
agenda.
Our democratic services member will have provided information about the times that are allotted
to you.
Three minutes are generally the number.
The alarm will sound and we do try to encourage you to wrap up in a neat fashion rather than
running on where it gets unpleasant for everybody.
if you can bring it to a nice clean halt that'd be great.
Apologies for absence, oh sorry I tell you I've forgotten the very important thing which is
introducing everybody which is myself I am the chair for the meeting, Councillor Will Coffman.
To my left is Councillor Dad and to her left are the planning officers Marie Claire Tovey
and Hannah Collins and our legal direct, legal services director. Is that correct?
Amanda Atcar. And to my right is Vivian Messenger, our Democratic Services member, and to her
right we have the webcaster who's mapped to Picking.
Back on to the point, point three is apologies for absence.
I've had apologies from Councillor McIver.

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

And do we have any substitute members?

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

4 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

I don't know. I did have a late substitution but it missed the deadline.

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Thank you. Members, do we have any declarations of interest, please?

6 MINUTES

Thank you. I appreciate it's a new committee, but we do have to confirm the
minutes from the committee held 8th April 2026. Is everyone happy that those
minutes are a fair and true reflection of that meeting? Thank you. We move on to
the first item which is agenda item seven
no this is the one that's been withdrawn
so this is agenda item seven
which has been deferred
The Declaration of Interest.
The Declaration of Interest.
We do it.
Apologies, we must have been looking at the numbers.

7 EPF/0414/25 - Land off Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey EN9 3AY

away. So Agenda Atoms 7 which was EPF 0414 stroke 25 has been deferred due to new information
being brought to the officer's attention at a very late stage. It was considered appropriate
to defer the application at this time to allow the matter to be explored further with a view
to bring the planning application back to a committee at a later date but officers do
to reserve the right to determine the matter
under their own delegated authority.
Marie Claire, are you happy with that as a?
Yes.
Cool.
So moving on there for members,
we move on to agenda item eight,

8 EPF/2770/23 - Land to the East of St. Leonards Road, Lower Nazeing

unless anyone has any objections to that,
which is application EPF 2770 stroke 23,
which is land to the east of St. Leonards road.
Councilman Williamson.
Sorry, Chairman.
So it's set out, it's been withdrawn because of new information that has been brought forwards,
which officers need to consider further.
Ah, so it hasn't been approved?
No.
Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:04:41
It's going to come back in?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:04:43
Either come back at a later date or as an action it will be determined after the gas
power.
Thank you.
Council, what was the question for Council?
Oh, sorry.
So, where were we?
So, lands the east of St. Leonard's Road, low and nazing.
There was a site visit carried out on the 1st of June.
The application is for, what's it included on there?
Page 38, which is an outline application with all matters reserved except access for the
erection of up to 104 dwellings, the provision of vehicular and pedestrian access, public
right -of -way improvements, green infrastructure including biodiversity, net gain and landscaping
and other infrastructure provision.
This relates to the south Nasing concept framework plan and the allocated sites in Nasing.
It's a resubmission of planning application EPF 2280 stroke 22.
The presenting officer for this one is Mohamed Rahman who is joining us on Teams.
So without further ado, if anyone's got anything further, I think we'll presume to continue.
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Chair, members and everyone. Item A relates to land to the
east of St. Leon's Road in Lower Nason. It is before the committee since it's a major
application of 10 or more units and the officer recommendation is for approval and a member
site visit also took place this Monday. The application is for our land planning permission
for up to 104 dwellings with all matters reserved except the primary vehicular access
and other works are set out. This is a revised application to a previous iteration for 120 homes
that was refused on numerous grounds in simple terms the first application was submitted
prematurely as there was no adopted plan in place nor was there any concept framework agreed
by the council. Before I move to the slides, following recent legal updates, condition
two relating to the reserve matters has been updated just to retain the internal access
layout and routes as a reserve matter and as officers have recommended this change,
it doesn't require a vote. So turning to the slides, here we have the location plan.
Here's the site outline in red and it does extend slightly to the highways just to include
the proposed highway improvements along here.
This is the wider site allocation in Nasing.
The subject site is located over here and it does include three parcels.
So NAIS R1, site number one, site number three and site number four you do have site number two up here.
So here's a big one of the the big chunk of allocation within NAISN.
Here's a closer view of of the allocation. It's known as the concept framework area
Rather than referring to the three separate parcels every time, it's known as the South
Nasium Concept Framework Plan.
And you can see the three separate parcels, one, three and four.
And just to note here, this was done at a high level, but there was an approximate figure
of 93 homes that could have been delivered on this site, but that was done at a very
high level.
We are now looking at the detail of the site.
Here's an aerial view of the site outlined in red.
You have St. Leonards Road along here and Tatsfield Avenue over here and Ponds Close
over here.
And the public right of way does run across down here.
So upon Councillor Dada's request here, we have the environment agency flood map.
The site itself is not within any EA flood zones two or three.
However, the wider area as you can see over here in the different shades of blue does
represent the areas that are prone to flooding and floods on two and three.
So there's a small section near the access point over here and further up in Nazin and
further down the brook over here.
And again this is the actual surface water flooding map, slightly different to the flood zone mapping.
You can see the site itself is not at risk of surface water flooding but there are surrounding areas such as over here along here that are prone to surface water flooding.
Here's the indicative master plan of the site which so this plan indicative is demonstrating it can accommodate 104 units comfortably and how it could you know look like.
You have the two primary accesses over here so access number one.
And access number two over here.
So here's the, so when a site is allocated, a lot of work is done on what infrastructure
requirements are required to deliver the allocated sites and that's done by the infrastructure
delivery plan.
It is a snapshot in time because the last one was done in 2021, although that is the
and these were the expected infrastructure requirements, you know, highway measures,
education, health, open space and community facilities.
During the course of the application, you know, we had comments from the consultees who gave us
live up -to -date information on the actual requirements that are required to date and
These are set out before you on this slide. We have policy compliant affordable housing,
highways improvements, public transport improvements of 322 and a half grand,
including two physical bus stops. This is in addition to the actual highway improvements
that will take place, which I'll come onto later on. There are various education,
Um, uh, infrastructure provision, um, for, uh,
early years, primary and secondary school transport.
There's NHS, uh, healthcare provision. Um, and I'm told
this approximate figure of 173 grand would be focused on the
Nazing Valley health centre, main ed court surgery and water
might be the main net core branch which can include you know extensions,
internal reconfiguration, hiring additional clinical staff to support the increased residence
within Nasein. You also have sports facilities, sport provision, community facilities as well,
including improvements to the Walter Mabry Library, which is the nearest one to the site,
along with improvements to the Elizabeth Clough play facility near the site.
And this amounts to a total of just rounded down to two million in section 106, money
towards infrastructure provision. Turning to the actual highways improvements,
it's probably not readily visible from this slide, I just want to highlight a few sections.
So over here as you enter the site coming down from St. Lawrence road, there will be what you
call dragon teeth markings which are going to be repainted, there'll be a new 30 miles per hour
sign and on the right hand side there'll be these new gateway signs to alert car users you know
you're entering their residential zone be more considerate drive at the speed limit.
As we move further along the roads you have proposed bus stops I believe
roughly here along with a signalised pedestrian crossing.
Sorry, yeah, the signal as pedestrian crossing is up here in this section, you have.
Solar powered signs for on both sides, South and the North band, just to alert them to slow down.
And there are various more.
How a physical highway improvements, which is in addition to.
The 300 grand towards the bus service.
The Chair, Members, the full assessment is set out in your agenda papers so I'll just
highlight the key points. Whilst the proposal is for 104 units, 11 more than the approximate
allocated figure of 93 units, however the applicants have demonstrated that the site
is capable of accommodating the increased units without amounting to harmful overdevelopment
of the site. This increase is welcome in officer's view given the current shortfall to the council's
five -year housing supply at 4 .22 years. The proposal itself satisfies the site's specific
policy requirements as set out on the agenda. Many of the finer details are to be resolved at
the reserve matter stage and conditions but considering the indicative proposal before members
it would be able to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring amenities,
particularly trees, provide a good level of accommodation for future users,
deliver meaningful highways improvements leading to a safer road for not only this site
but the existing residents of Nasing and also not need to increase flood risk within the area.
There will be benefits from the construction and occupation of the homes along with the
delivery of 42 affordable homes and over as shown on the slide 2 million towards the planning
applications listed here. Overall the proposal would deliver homes on an allocated site in
line with the visions and objectives of the adopted local plan, one of which is to provide
a mix of new homes within the district to meet the needs of existing and future generations.
Members will of course consider the concerns raised by local residents, however balance
must be struck in considering the needs of the future generations. There are those who
would live in the 104 homes including the 42 affordable units and support the economy
of Nasing. Accordingly, the recommendation before members is to grant planning permission
subject to conditions and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the
contributions are set down on this slide including the monitoring fees. Thank you chair, that's
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:17:18
the end. Thank you Mohamed. We have two speakers with us, one on Teams and another in person.
first we will go to Michael Hample on Teams who is an objective.
I assume that the objector is not with us, so if no one objects we will move on to the
agent who is Mark Schmull in person.
You have three minutes, sir.
Thank you, Chair.
Public Speaker - 0:18:09
Good evening, Chair and members.
My name is Mark Schmull.
I'm the Managing Director of Arrow Planning and I'm here today speaking to you on behalf
of the applicants.
As you know, this application seeks outline permission for up to 104 dwellings on land
east of St Leonard's Road in Nasing. Members are aware that this site forms part of the
south Nasing allocation within the adopted Epping Forest Local Plan. As the officer report
makes clear, the principle of residential development here has already been established
Public Speaker - 0:18:38
through the local plan process. The question therefore, before members this evening, is
whether the proposal coords with the requirements of that allocation and obviously the wider
Development Plan and National Planning Policy. Key point in this case that this has not come
forward in a piecemeal fashion given that the allocation relates to three different
parcels of land. For in the previous application, the applicants entered into a planning performance
agreement with the Council and through that process they've produced the South Nasin Concept
Framework Plan which as you've heard tonight has been consulted upon and subsequently endorsed
by Cabinet roughly 12 months or so ago now. The Concept Framework Plan establishes the
vision for how this allocated site should come forward, including the movement, connectivity,
green infrastructure, landscape structure, public rights of way, access arrangements
and the overall placemaking principles. It was prepared following a very rigorous design
review panel process carried out using Essex Quality Review Panel. Importantly, the officer
report confirms that the application that is now before you was amended following the
cabinet's endorsement to ensure that now what members are being asked to consider aligns
with the concept framework plan
and reflects the overall spatial and design principles
for the site that that detailed document establishes.
As you'll see from the report,
the Parish Council does not object to the application
subject to being consulted on the detailed traffic calming,
pedestrian crossing and related highway measures.
That consultation has taken place
with the drawing that the case officer demonstrated
to you tonight consulted upon last summer.
So they've had the opportunity to review those measures
as have all members of the public
during the course of the application's consideration,
and those measures will be secured
via the proposed planning conditions
with the public transport contribution secured
via the Section 106 legal agreement.
Essex Highways have raised no objection
and they've confirmed the development
will not have a significant or severe impact
on the highway network.
As you've heard, the scheme will deliver traffic calming,
pedestrian improvements, new bus stops,
and enhanced public transport provision,
which will benefit not only the residents of the development
but the existing residents within the local community.
The Environment Agency, Natural England, the Ecology team and the Council's drainage,
landscape and tree specialists all raise no objections subject to conditions which are
proposed and the applicant is happy to agree. Importantly, the proposal will deliver 104
homes of which 42 of those will be affordable, meeting the Council's full requirement and
there will be over two million pounds towards public transport, education, healthcare, community
facilities, open space and sport. We therefore respectfully request that members go in line
with the officer recommendation and grant permission.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Schmull.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:21:11
We are blessed this evening
with two ward councillors in the room.
Who would like to speak first?
Can you speak of the objective back there?
Is the objector in the room?
Hasn't joined.
Hasn't joined?
Proceed with Councillor Bassett, please.
Thank you, I'll start.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:21:30
Firstly, can I say I do accept
that this space is in the local plan
because I did the local plan, and I accept the fact under the framework that we need
to develop. But I do have a couple of issues that I would like the members to actually
consider. The first one is, you know, if you go back to EPF 2280 stroke 22, which was the
previous application that was refused, they actually refused it on about six, seven reasons,
and two of those I believe are still there.
Obviously I live about 400 yards away
and know the area rather well.
I've lived there for 27 years.
And the first one is,
is to do with the traffic itself.
I've got a official council traffic survey
from Essex Highways which we do regularly.
And in that 30 miles an hour,
it shows an 85th percentile of over 38 miles an hour coming through, and that's 85 percent
of coming through that area. Similarly, you've got the issue that maximum speed, I do speed
watch on that area at St Leonard's Road, and the amount of people we catch well in their
40s up to 50 mile an hour, because they come from a 60, they just get into the 30, and
then you'll be on where this exit route is.
Therefore, I'm very concerned there,
especially if you look at the traffic volumes there.
I think one way we had 3 ,404 vehicles northbound
in a 12 hour period the main day,
and going southbound was 3 ,110,
which is, you know, well over about seven and a half thousand vehicles a day are using that bit of road.
So you can actually imagine it's very busy, so therefore any traffic emerging.
I already have issues with people trying to drive out of Tatsfield Road saying it's virtually impossible at certain times of the day.
They can't turn right, there's no way. They have to turn left, go well up the road, turn around and come back the other way.
So, to be honest there, I would say that there needs to be further work done on actually
making that bit of road safe.
And to be honest, the simplest thing would be to move the 30 mile an hour down to Laundry
Lane, which is about another 100 yards further back, giving vehicles a chance to slow down
before they come across this area.
Yes, there will be a pedestrian, but if someone's coming through around the corner doing 50
miles an hour, they will be on that crossing in about one and a half seconds, which won't
do the pedestrian too much good.
And similarly on the other side is to do with flooding.
Now I have constant pretty pictures from residents showing me the St Leonards just by St Leonards
up towards the traffic lights flooded.
So to say it is not in a flood zone is a bit strange.
And the main reason is that the brook from Litching Brook,
which runs across this site down,
the water comes down the hill, hits the brook,
comes charging down, the ditch cannot handle it,
so it floods the road.
And I can't see anything in this proposal
that will stop that.
If anything, it will make it worse.
And they're talking about culver in under the entrance.
Yes, but it doesn't stop the amount of water.
If you want to try and do something, they should either make the ditch bigger or culvert
it to a bigger size and just try and get the water into the nazing drain, which is up at
the traffic lights.
And it is a regular problem there.
So I'm concerned that we need to address these problems.
And you know, I could go on about lots of other issues.
I do speed watch there, it is bad.
You get them accelerating away from the traffic lights,
going southbound, and you'll think it's a Grand Prix
racing track sometimes when you listen to them.
So, but that's my two areas here.
One of which is we need to improve the road safety further
before we throw another 110 houses into the equation.
You know, that's 200, 300 traffic movements a day.
I'm not sure if the primary school can take that sort of volume anyway of children, but
that's another matter for Essex.
It's not our problem yet.
But the other one is I am very concerned that they haven't fully exposed the issue of the
possibility of flooding.
They just look at it on paper, flood zone one, flood zone two, but that is not necessarily
the truth of the matter.
I've got it elsewhere in Nazing.
I will leave it there because I don't want to go on about lots of different things.
Thank you, Councillor Bassett.
Councillor Whitford.
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:26:44
Thank you, Chairman.
And Chairman, can I thank you for allowing me to come on your site visit on Monday.
It was most helpful.
And although I know the area well, actually Walkins site was very, very useful.
And of course, also thank you for the public presentation that was given some time ago
now.
Obviously we have to accept this is a site within the local plan and therefore is there for development.
And I think that's the realism of the situation.
That doesn't stop me from saying I'm extremely disappointed with the County Council's knowledge of this site.
I'm really disappointed with the outcomes of their judgments.
They have forgotten the numerous times that Councillor Bassett and myself have told them
about the issues of increasingly heavy HGVs in that location and we saw them ourselves
on Monday.
There was almost three by -elections at least as we wandered down the road.
We also are only too aware of the speeding traffic in that location as people accelerate
up St Leonard's Road.
we also know that if you're doing a development you want it to benefit the
whole community there has to be tangible evidence that the people of
Lower Nasing will benefit from any development that goes in on this
location so whilst I am taking on board the improvements that are shown for
highways in the location I do think perhaps at the junction of Leonard Road
and Middle Street there should have been a bit more thought into the crossing
area for children going to school. It's an opportunity to improve that location. I don't
think there's enough there for that. I'm very mindful that the parish council who are excellent
in delivering for nazing have taken on board the development and the fact that it's in
the local plan and they want to be actively engaged in the highways issues. They have
a really great knowledge of that location. It would be good for them to be firmly heard
on this as it moves forward. Flooding, we all know flooding is a problem there. We
had someone come out to see us when we were down there on Monday who said you
know what are you doing about the flooding. There is a real issue there.
It's as Councillor Bassett highlighted there's the culverts that we managed to
get cleared last year but we understand our issues with the piping under the
road. That will need to be addressed. All those issues need to be taken into
account. In many ways this is a natural extension of the village envelope which
I understand and all I would say to members this evening yes I'm pleased to
see the level section 106 contributions that are set out. I want to make sure
they are to the benefit which on the whole they are of the residents of
Lower Nasing. I want to make sure we go further on the highways and I want to
make sure that's pressed home and that we get the speed reductions up in
I think Councillor Bassett is quite correct that it needs to come down to 30 miles per
hour for a majority of the road in that particular location.
I want to make sure that we do address the flooding issues.
So many people down there have suffered over the years.
It's not acceptable.
It needs to be dealt with.
I want to make sure that children can walk to school safely, whether they are on the
side of the development or whether they're coming from Middle Street.
This should be a development that benefits lower nazing, not is inflicted upon lower
nazing.
I hope we can achieve those things in this application.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:30:22
Thank you, Councillor Whitbread.
Members, over to your good selves.
Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:30:30
Councillor Williamson first.
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:30:35
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, the site visit was very informative.
I accept the point about the three by -elections.
There were some very, very large trucks going down there.
There is a 30 mile an hour speed limit there.
I accept and I hope we can get it brought further down the road so it starts earlier.
But the key to all of these restrictions are enforcement.
I think that's what seems to be lacking.
if somebody's, the average speed is 38 and over 40
quite often, then we need some enforcement down there,
surely, that would alleviate some of it.
The flooding, I'm hoping that there is a small improvement
for local residents because the runoff from this site
will be dealt with by the SUDs on the site.
So whatever's running off those fields,
which are now gonna be a development,
will hopefully be taken out of the equation
for a short time till it's released back into the system.
I wanted to be absolutely certain
that the 40 % affordable homes are covered
under a section 106 and there's no coming back
to change that if officers could just confirm that.
I'd appreciate that.
I think that pretty much,
I noted that conservation have a concern, but on the site visit we were assured that
that will be dealt with in the reserve matters.
Yeah, I've got nothing further to say on this.
I'm happy to listen to the rest of the debate.
Thank you.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:32:15
Thank you, Councillor Williamson.
I was just going to ask if officers wanted to come back on that point on the 106.
Sorry, Mohammed.
I forget you're being up there.
Yes, it would be secured by section 106 to deliver 40 % affordable housing.
I also just asked the question as to what the housing mix will be on the affordable
housing.
That would be submitted as part of the section 106.
So they'll submit an affordable housing mix, which is normally 25%.
I believe, affordable rented and 75%.
I've lost my head now, but that is the share of the mix.
But the final housing mix is to be confirmed
by the section 106 post submission.
Thank you, Mohamed.
Councillor Shaw.
Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:33:15
Sorry, thank you, Chairman.
I mean my comments are really the same as has been said.
I mean I had a site visit myself over the weekend and when you drive into Nasing suddenly
the houses are there, they hit you.
And yes I think I was doing more than 30 when I hit the houses.
Is it not possible to, I mean a camera would be the answer if you go to Loughton and Thayton
Boys there's always cameras as you go into the villages and that's really what it needs
there.
Perhaps also moving the pedestrian crossing, if it's got lights, could it move further south, south -east, to the other entrance, to the other entrance to the site?
There are two entrances to the site.
If you move it further along the road there,
then as the traffic comes in towards the houses,
there will be a set of lights there, wouldn't there?
Pedestrian lights that would slow the traffic down.
I don't know.
Anyway, I think whatever the solution is,
it needs something to address that problem
of the traffic coming into Nasing.
That was it.
Thank you.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:34:31
Council Lucas.
Cllr Jodie Lucas - 0:34:35
Thank you, Chairman. My comments really are around the traffic and I completely take on
on board what the ward members have said with regards to the speed, but I do still remain
concerned about the access from the new development onto that road. I personally live along the
cricket mile, so a lot of that traffic that is accessing that road comes onto the cricket
mile and I can tell you as of this morning it took me about 10 minutes to pull out of
my drive. So that's just one resident trying to pull out when we look at maybe 100 residents.
And I accept that there's two egress points, but that is something that really does need
to be, to be thought about. And I, I'm not sure that that has been considered sufficiently
enough. With regards to the flooding, I'm also very familiar with exactly what Councillor
Bassett described with the images that have been shared by residents. I actually attended
in primary school as a child,
and I remember completely getting stuck
and my parents had a big car
and we was completely stuck in that area of road.
It has improved, but over the last couple of years,
we've seen in that area that the rainfall
is worse than it was.
Take on board the point that Councillor Williamson said
that the water runoff going onto the road will be improved,
which we are seeing that from the farmer's fields,
it has made it significantly worse.
But I think that there does need to be more done with the drains
in that area and across Nasing fully.
I do massively sympathise with the residents that live
in that area and are currently looking at lovely fields that
are of course no longer in the green belt because of the local
plant allocation.
But I do want to put on record that, you know,
I do understand and acknowledge all of their concerns and it is
going to be different for them now looking at development
rather than open fields.
And as the planning committee this evening,
I hope that they understand that we
have to treat this as a local plan site that
does have the allocation for development already.
So we can't take on board some of their comments
that we can no longer take as accurate,
because it is no longer a green belt site, which I think
is different to when things have been proposed on there previously.
They are really my comments.
I hope that with the section 106 there are more that can be done as Councillor Chris
Whitbread mentioned for the residents of Nasing and I really do think that the applicant should
continue to work if it is approved this evening, continue to work with Eppin Forest District
Council, Essex Highways and the local Nasin Council to reach some suitable
mitigation for all of the issues that still remain on that site. Thank you.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:37:25
Thank you, Councillor Lucas. Councillor Wiskin please. Thank you, Chairman. Could I ask
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:37:32
the officer to bring up the slide which shows how this site relates to the three
sites which are part of the overall plan.
Whilst he's bringing that up, a point of I think it would be
useful, not just for this application, but for further
applications, I've mentioned this before when I've subbed on
committees, could we have the actual number of objections
listed on the summary of representations rather than the
term multiple?
I think that gives a picture not just for this application but for all applications.
I was on the site visit and my concerns were amongst those which were mentioned about the
traffic and the flooding potential.
In terms of this, sorry, referring back to what is put in front of us, this, Muhammad,
Mohamed, could you confirm that it's the middle parcel of land
which is where the development is?
Sorry, it's all three sites.
It's the whole area outlined, the blue.
So is that?
That's the one around it.
Sorry, I can't see that.
Can you do it again?
What can I?
My point was that this is one parcel
of the three parcels of land.
Is that correct?
If they're into joining.
It's the, it's the, it's the, it's all,
all three plots together.
I see. In the hatch.
Okay, I misunderstood.
My point was going to be that if,
if there were further developments,
would the traffic issue actually be far worse going
down the road?
No pun intended.
Then it would be, if it was done in a piecemeal fashion.
But my point on the access to the sites were the visibility.
It really is the visibility splay for cars potentially in the future turning right or
left out of either of the two access points.
I think that really has to be designed very, very carefully in line with the traffic restrictions
which are clearly needed.
The suggestions made by Councillor Bassett in terms of the 30 mile an hour zone are perfectly
valid and I would welcome that.
But I think that's the main issue for me was the traffic.
The rest of it is in the local plan.
It is adopted.
We have to accept that.
It's a sad loss of green fields but that has been accepted along the way.
but subject to the conditions and the roads situation being improved and nailed down,
I would be supporting this application.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:40:30
Thank you, Councillor Whiskin.
Councillor Amos.
Sorry.
Cllr Clive Amos - 0:40:33
Thank you, Chairman.
Unfortunately I was not able to go to the site visit on Monday.
They're always arranged on Mondays and that's the one day that I can't go.
Nevertheless, having read all the papers and knowing that this is part of the
local plan and an area designated for the local plan for development, I was
coming here tonight minded to vote in favour of this outline planning
application. I have been concerned though about the road safety measures that have
been mentioned this evening and the flooding and I think it's very important
whatever conditions are implied make sure that these things are covered
because we don't want to leave it and then find that there are that we have
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:41:20
problems with road safety accidents and flooding. Thank you. Thank you Councillor
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:41:25
Ramos. Councillor... Thank You Chairman. Yes I was on the site visit as well and the
points raised I won't repeat them because they were a great concern to me
as well. What concerns me is this is an outline planning application with all matters reserved
except for access and erection of up to 104 dwellings, provision of vehicle and pedestrian
access, public right of way improvement, green infrastructure, et cetera. Now, what I feel
is initially I thought well the conditions would probably meet it but
listening tonight and looking at more details I haven't seen any I've seen
that some of the conditions are missing for example if you look at the studs and
the flooding issues condition 12 but it's not very clear about whether
there's going to be adequate recompense about the flooding. For example EFDC
required more conditions, more details required. This was dated the 29th of
April with the final modelling and calculations for the draining system
and attenuation calculations etc and confirming the treatment for all the
runoff leaving the site and there's a few other things as well. That doesn't
seem to be in Condition 12. I'm also concerned if we look at the SUDs situation because where
they are is quite a steep site and the SUDs attenuation ponds, there's no details about
them, they look rather small. And one of them seems to be on higher ground and I'm wondering,
I couldn't find anything to show that those have been agreed by the LLFA. So from that
perspective, and I know that we did raise this on Monday, we haven't had anything further
back from the case officer to strengthen any of these conditions. Going back to the one
about the road safety, I know that in Ongo we did ask for a vehicle -activated signage
which does help, but there's also other issues about the road safety and about whether they've
addressed the large vehicles and turning
within the estate itself.
Now, I looked at the Quality Review Panel report,
which had quite a lot of concerns
I don't think have been addressed.
And one of the things they talk about
is something that was raised on Monday was the,
and I quote from this on page section four,
the public right of way and play space beyond the north of the site should be improved as part of this scheme.
We saw just a muddy track, a compacted track which would be very muddy and impassable in wet weather in the winter.
But there's no indication in these conditions about how that, which is supposed to be looked at with the access and accessibility, how that is.
The other thing that comes across to me on the quality review panel, and that is the
parking issue.
They're not happy with the parking issue.
They consider again on this section that the parking provision should reflect the reality
of the site's accessibility, and it's not in a sustainable location.
the figures that we were given in the DAS on page 21, 4 .1, which goes through the
previous proposal and the recommendations and changes says the
visitor parking spaces have been reduced from 35 to 12. The proposal
includes an overall parking provision of 122 spaces. That's for 104 homes.
even if they're all one bedroom,
a visitor requirement would be 26,
would be 130 in total.
The other thing I find rather strange too
is that I asked about the net developable area,
and as you know, some parts you can't develop,
you can't count as your density.
For example, where you have the suds and some open spaces.
and thank you Mr. Rahman for coming back to me on that because the proposal of
this outline is 104 homes. The gross density which is on the gross site area
is 32 per hectare the whole site being 3 .22 hectares but the net density for
the net developable area if that is calculated at 2 .2 hectares removing the
green site, the green and the suds infrastructure area is 47 houses per hectare. That to me
is far too high for a rural location. This is a rural location, it's not suburban, it's
not urban and it's probably at least twice as much as is present. Although this is only
an outline, I don't see how they can actually do anything other than what they're suggesting
up to four storeys and flats. And I think that is most inappropriate. There's a couple
of other things in the DAS which is to do with overlooking. I know that comes perhaps
later but the overall plan will be overlooking and overbearing to some of the existing residents.
And then I've got a note about the designs.
In their design, their precedent, it doesn't look at all like the rural character.
The character in vernacular, yes, it is in the local plan, but it's got to be the right
design to fit in with the location.
This is the rural location, and I think it is most unsuitable, and I don't see how even
they change the architecture, I don't see how you can actually cram 104 dwellings to
make something that is in character. I'm sorry I'm going on a bit because I've got other
concerns. So I think the conditions are lacking and I think it's a great pity that they didn't
do more work on them before they brought it back to us. So I've already said that it's
out of character with the density, the mass, the height, the parking and the
housing mix. The housing mix I understand, I did find this in their DAS I think it
was, which basically was 40 % three -bedroomed and 30 % one -bedroomed.
Now we know overall the local plan says 70 % three -bedroomed or more, 20 %
two bedroom and 10 % one bedroom.
That's not going to suit nazing.
Pedestrian access, the links to the school, et cetera,
and through are still poor and PROW,
the one I've already mentioned, which is number 14,
must not only have better condition,
but there must also be management
to make sure it is kept in good condition.
In addition to that, green infrastructure. There is a lack of green space and it's already been shown in the reports from the green infrastructure people who said that there's a lack of trees and the green space and also the new defendable greenbelt boundary.
Now those might be dealt with in reserve matters but personally I think
there's too much wrong with this to actually be acceptable now. I don't, I'm
not in favour of deferring things for obvious reasons and because of our
numbers etc I know we're anxious to get more things approved but I'm very
disappointed in what's been presented to us and I will not be voting in favour of
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:50:08
it. Thank you Councillor Dadd. Mr Rahman.
I just wanted to clarify a couple of points. Councillor Dadd has raised good points but many of them do go
outside the scope of this outline planning application before members. The
drainage conditions are robust they do have to set you know give the
information that the council's drainage team have set out.
It doesn't have to be specified in the condition.
It does ask for an overarching scheme.
Based on members discussion,
I'd recommend modifying condition 22
to see if we can move or have another 30 mile towards,
was it laundry work subject to agreement with the Essex
because obviously they would be the land owners and they would need
approval if they're not going to give approval then it won't be deliverable so
we can probably modify condition 22 in a way where they can explore that and if
I was agree it can be implemented yeah thank you chair just want to clarify
that thank you mr. Raman council bass were you motioning for something or no
One question I was going to ask is whether or not it had been explored the potential
for a roundabout to be the means of accessing, whether you could move the two entrances so
they align.
The idea of possibly either a four -way junction, which I don't think anyone would support,
or a roundabout would seem to be a helpful compromise.
I just don't know if that's been explored with Essex.
From our recollection and other schemes
that are to sustain a roundabout,
I believe we need a thousand homes for it to be justified.
I'm content.
It's something we can explore
if we modify condition 22 in a way where it's explored,
subject to the approval, if it can be delivered,
it's delivered.
Thank you, Mohamed.
Councillor Bassa.
Yeah, thank you.
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:52:30
Used to be on the highways panel as well.
We did look at, because of the issues of coming out of Tatsfield,
we did have a chat about putting a roundabout in that area
and we were informed the road width wasn't wide enough
and it just wasn't a suitable place to put it without taking the other side of the road
and because there was the Litchin ditch there, you would then be having to go over the ditch
and we didn't own the land on the other side.
So it got told no.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:53:01
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 0:53:04
Yeah, chairman, I'm looking at the really good
quality comments that came from Council Dadden
and the concerns they raise about the site.
And whilst no one here this evening would want to refuse
the application because we know it's a local plan site
and it shouldn't be refused,
but it should be right.
And if there are questions asked
that aren't really fully fulfilled within the report,
and I know that Councillor Dadda's obviously spent
a long time doing that analysis,
I would have thought probably this evening
the right thing to do would be to defer the report
subject to the response to those particular queries
and whether or not conditions need to be changed
rather than trying to change conditions on the evening.
I mean, this is an important site,
but it's not just important to the developer,
it's important to the residents of Lower Nasing. Get this wrong, the pressure on
the road and the pressure on the location will just really make it
detrimental to the residents. Thank you, Councillor. Can I take
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:54:11
Cllr Jodie Lucas - 0:54:16
Councillor Lucas first? Thank you and I think that there have been a lot of
questions following Councillor Dadd's detailed analysis and I'm really
grateful for the time that you've taken in looking specifically into so many details.
But I think that I'm particularly conscious of the condition 22 that the case officer
has mentioned and I take on board what Councillor Chris Whitbread has said. I don't feel comfortable
with making amendments to the conditions at this meeting this evening and it would be
my proposal that we actually defer this decision until we have the more detailed discussions,
feedback from the officer and the conditions in front of us.
Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Dadd.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:54:58
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:55:01
I understand the attitude about deferring, but will deferring answer the other queries
that are to do with this outline as well?
Because it's not just can we get some of the conditions changed or added to on flooding
and on highways, in my opinion,
it's really, really important that it is the right density
and the right type of housing and the right parking.
And if you're trying to cram too much in,
you're not going to,
the original one was approximately 93.
That could make a big difference.
I mean, probably when they've been doing the analysis
of the site, they've discovered that there's less of it
that you can build on than originally thought.
And personally, I think that would not be able to be,
unless we can be reassured by a case officer,
whether that would be able to be addressed by deferring it,
it might be cleaner to refuse it and have a look again
at those points that we didn't like.
Thank you.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:56:13
Mr. Rahman.
Chair, I must clarify that many of the points Councillor Dabab raised is beyond the scope
of this island application density and the finer details.
They are to be discussed at the reserve matters.
Even the QRP report mentioned that does not relate to this scheme.
It relates to a previous iteration which was superseded by the concept framework which
which was approved by the council.
This scheme before members is to be in line
with that concept framework.
So the QRP comments are no longer relevant.
They've been addressed with the endorsed concept framework.
So that in my view is not accurate.
And the conditions in my view are robust
in terms of drainage and is within members gift
to modify conditions and to just to see
if they can explore moving the 30 mile down the road,
it doesn't, I don't think deferring it
and then trying to resolve that would be seen
because it can take a long time.
The case has been with us for some years.
There is enough information to make a sound judgement.
It seems to me that this highway is a sticking point
and I would recommend condition 22 is just modified
to explore any of them which is not an uncommon approach. Thank you. Thank you Mr.
Armond. I think we do need to be very conscious of the position of the site in
the local plan and if we are going to be moving towards rather than a deferral a
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:58:01
reason for refusal. Sorry, Councillor. Thank you chair. I think the valid comments we've
on all sorts of things tonight.
But I think deferment to get this condition
on the traffic is absolutely key to this.
If we can do anything about the drainage as well
while we're looking at that.
And also I think the,
if it's in line with the concept framework,
we have to accept that.
I perfectly take on board Councillor Dadd's comments,
but that's all in the reserve matters.
that's still to come. I think we certainly need to sort out this traffic
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:58:44
condition and I second the proposal to defer. Thank you Councillor Williamson.
So we've had a...
Sorry, we need...
So please can we have a clear proposer and a seconder?
We've got Councillor Lueb as already proposed.
Councillor Williamson has seconded it already.
So members, we have a proposal to defer this decision for those matters to be discussed
in further detail.
Please can I have a?
Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:59:37
I just have one point that would be helpful
if it came back to this committee
who've already heard all of the points
instead of going to another committee.
Thank you, Councillor Limson.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:59:46
I'm sure the officers will do their best to do that,
but I suppose it will land where it lands.
So members.
Chairs, apologies to the other officers.
just for clarity so it's to be deferred just to review condition 22 only around
the traffic. No it's to consider further the matter regarding traffic, the
drainage and anything else? And density. No scratch that from the record it's not
density.
Members, can we have a vote for that then please?
All in favour of a deferral to a later date, please show.
Unanimous chairman.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:00:48
That motion therefore is deferred.

9 EPF/2269/25 - 15 Forest Edge, Buckhurst Hill IG9 5AD

Members, we move on to the final item this evening, which is gender item 9, which is
EPF 226925, which is 15 Forest Edge, Buckhurst Hill, and there is a change of use of a dwelling
C3A to a children's home for up to two children, with a manager, a resident carer, and an additional
carer who will sleep overnight.
members, just for people watching online, Councillor Williamson is moving over as ward
Councillor to his seat on the other side of the room. The officer for this application
is Mahindra Bagri who is on Teams. Mahindra if you would like to proceed with your presentation.
Thank you, Chairman.
This presentation is for Item 9 on the Agenda Application Reference, EPF 226925.
It is before the committee as it is contrary to at least five contrary representations
received on grounds material to the planning merits of the proposal.
The site, marked in red, is No. 15 Forest Edge. It lies within the defined settlement
boundary of Buckhurst Hill. It is a two -storey, link -detached, free -bedroom dwelling house
sited on the western side of the road. Either side of the site are residential properties.
a pink forest lies to the north. It is on a rectangular -shaped plot with a front driveway
and privately enclosed garden to the rear. Here is an aerial view of the site. Here is
image of the front of the dwelling and street view.
The floor plans on this slide are of previously refused schemes. The scheme is identical to
a previously refused application reference EPF 123225. It was refused on the grounds
of non -compliance to nationally described space standards due to the introduction of
small additional room to the rear of the first floor. Its second reason for refusal was due
to insufficient information to carry out a planning assessment on the proposal's impact
on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation. This slide shows the existing and proposed
floor plans. This submission is again for the change of use of the existing premises
from a residential dwelling C3 to a residential care home C2 use for two children.
There are no changes to the external elevations and the floor plans revert to its existing layout
of three bedrooms on the first floor.
The proposed use would not alter the appearance, function or character of the dwelling. The
low number of children being cared for would not result in an intensification of the site
over and above the existing land use. Daily patterns of movement to and from the building
would not be any greater in number which might lead to traffic, parking or other disturbance
to amenity than one would expect in a typical family or small care home. The use would be
upstairs regulated. The proposal attracts significant local objection broadly concerning
impact on the character of the area, increased traffic, intensification of the use through
increased comings and goings, fear of crime and amongst other things whether this facility
would be better suited elsewhere. Impact on the character and appearance, on residential
amenities and on highway safety and parking were addressed in the previous application
and did not form reasons for refusal. Given the identical nature of the application to
previous refusal, the main issues for the Committee to consider are whether those previous
reasons are overcome. There are minor alterations to the existing layout and no external changes.
The proposal meets minimums -based standards. As screened out by independent HRA consultants,
the change of use would not result in any significant net increase in traffic
through roads using through the FSAC or result in significant
additional recreational pressure. Since all identified planning harms have been
overcome, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. I
leave you with a final slide showing recent planning history leading to the policy compliance
scheme before you today. That is the end of the presentation. Thank you.
Thank you, Mahindra. We have two speakers. First, we will go to the objector who is in
the room. That's Mr Ranjit Singh Khandi, sir. You have three minutes.
Public Speaker - 1:07:20
I appear on behalf of residents of Forest Edge and I'm also one of those residents and
we'd respectfully ask for you to refuse the application. We want to make it clear that
this objection is not directed at looked after children. Every child deserves appropriate
care and accommodation and our concern is whether this particular property is suitable
for the proposed C2 institutional use and whether the officer's report adequately addresses
the planning impacts. The report repeatedly concludes the proposal is effectively no different
from an ordinary family home. However, the application itself describes a children's
home with a manager, a resident carer and an additional overnight carer operating on
a rota basis. This is not a typical family arrangement. The committee is being asked
to approve a residential institution,
yet the assessment largely assumes family household impacts
without any robust evidence regarding staffing patterns,
shift changes, professional visits, regulatory inspections,
social worker attendance, or other operational activity.
The report also relies on a five -year housing supply
shortfall to justify the proposal.
However, Children's Home is a specialist
institutional accommodation and does not contribute
towards a conventional housing land supply.
The officer has therefore attached significant weight
to a factor that appears to have little or no relevance
to the planning merits of the application.
Members should also note that the site lies approximately 50
metres from Epping for a special area of conservation.
Given the very sensitive location,
we would urge caution before accepting a conclusion
that there would be no additional impacts
without a more detailed explanation
of the assessment undertaken.
Importantly, as has already been stated by the Planning Officer, there have been previous
refusals relating to the use of the properties of Children's Home.
The report states that the current proposal has overcome bedroom size concerns, but it
doesn't fully explain why the Committee should now conclude that the use is acceptable overall.
Members are entitled to ask what has materially changed.
Finally, the officer's conclusion, well, one point in relation to the material change here
is that the officer's conclusion that the use is not a material change does sit uneasily
with the fact that planning permission is required precisely because the proposal falls
within different use class, namely C2 rather than C3.
And if the use is materially different in planning terms, then the committee must carefully
consider its cumulative impacts on this residential street.
Key points that I've just referred to are the officer
has treated the proposal as effectively equivalent
to a family home without properly assessing
the operational realities of a C2 institution.
Secondly, the report relies heavily on assumptions rather
than evidence regarding staffing, vehicle movements,
and the intensity of use.
The housing needs argument is legally and logically weak
because children's homes are not part of the Council's five -year housing land supply calculation.
The site is only 50 metres from Epping Forest SAC and the committee should be satisfied that
HRA evidence is robust before granting permission. The report fails to explain why two previous
applications were refused and what the material planning said, what material material circumstances
have changed. There was an impact statement that was sent to the chair and to the committee,
which is a detailed statement, five pages. I don't prefer to go into it because I don't
have the time, but it has been signed by 61 residents. I myself haven't signed it, so
it could well be 62, but there were 24 objections and 61 people have signed a statement.
Thank you, sir. I'm going to bring you to a halt. I think that's a neat place to bring
you to just to stop. Obviously we'll discuss matter in further in a moment. We also have
the applicant who's on Teams, Dr. Mazrao Zannan.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:11:35
Yes, hi, good evening Mr Chairman and respective members. My name is Dr Zannan, I'm a medical
doctor with profound experience in healthcare and social welfare. I'm working in partnership
with Solace Care Group, which is established provider of children's residential care services,
specialising in supporting children with emotional and behavioural disorders.
We have a child -centred approach for the re -ablement and rehabilitation in a safe and sported,
homely environment. Children in this particular care home will live in a typical small family
and it will be only two children setting
during usual children daily activities.
There will be no external signage or indication
that the home is a care setting
to ensure prime privacy and dignity of the children.
Our group has a dedicated specialist team
which actively engages with neighbours and local community.
We have a formal neighbourhood policy in place
and the said home is going to be registered
as said earlier with AUSTED and fully compliant with Children's Home Regulation 2015.
We have a designated RA responsible individual, Mr Kevin Dobson, who holds significant experience
in managing children's homes and has extensive experience working with multiple local authorities.
Also there is a wider management team comprised of service delivery manager, quality assurance managers as well.
We are also working in partnership with Essex County Council, which has identified and given
us a support as a need to improve quality of children home and enhance an outcome for
children care.
And this collaboration is supported by this formal letter given to us by the Essex County
Council so that we should be working jointly to meet the placement demands in the Essex
counter, leading to increase load replacement availability and to reduce
out of area placements. Finally I would just say we are committed to provide
nurturing care and environment supporting children to live normal
fulfilling life and we will fight by all the conditions laid down by the
council to set up this children home so that every child has the
to have reached their full potential.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
We have also the ward councillor in the room,
Ken Williamson.
Council Williamson, if you'd like to speak.
Thank you, Chair.
I know the area very well, having lived there,
I'd like to say all my life,
but I've still got some to come, so most of my life.
I don't look concerned on the plans
that the separate WC on the first floor
seems to be removed to make the bedroom bigger.
And also that the downstairs office has a bathroom.
It seems to be a strange mix,
Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:14:41
but maybe the members voting will have something to say
about that.
I noted that the parish made no comment
to any of the applications.
I think even the refused ones.
I understand from residents locally,
there may well be covenants in place.
of what can be done with the houses.
Again, that's outside planning law.
If we give permission, it's for somebody else
to sort out the covenants.
It's as if, say, not a planning issue.
I think we all want what is best for the children
and the residents here.
It's one of those strange ones.
I understand residents concerns,
fully understand their concerns.
But I think when we come to the movements of traffic people,
It's no different to a large family moving in.
When we sell a house, the neighbours have no say
on who can actually move in.
It could well be a family with six children, who knows?
There are things in place to control.
If there is a problem,
I think we're between a rock and a hard place
and I can't think of a planning reason
to actually refuse this, but that's not my problem tonight.
I'm sitting this side.
Thank you, chair.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:16:00
Thank you, Councillor Williamson.
Members.
Councillor Lucas, please.
Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:16:07
There were just a few other points I wish to make if that was possible.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:16:11
Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:16:13
Thank you, chairman.
I think something when reading this report that really stood out to me is that in the context and background
It actually explains that a lot of what is being put to us this evening could actually
be done under existing permitted development rights.
The purpose of this full plan application is to meet OFSTED requirements and I think
that's really important for us to consider.
They actually want to do this for their OFSTED requirements to make sure that this is appropriate
for the children that are there.
And actually under planning merits it could probably be done under permitted development
and I think that is a really important part of this report for us to consider.
In terms of what the objectors have said, and I understand that there's 60 residents that are a little bit,
you know, unsure about what's to come and having the care arrangement,
but I mean I've lived in a household where my elderly grandmother had care
and she had four carers, carers coming four times a day, sorry,
That was done in a normal family home and it's not unheard of for there to be that kind
of movement into a normal dwelling.
So I don't personally see any real issue with that from a planning perspective.
There is lots of being considered here but I really do think it's important for the other
members to realise that this, unless the planning officer tells me I'm wrong, but my understanding
from the report is that everything that's being proposed here could be under permitted
development. Thank you.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:17:46
Mahindra, would you like to come back and comment on any of those points just for clarification
purposes?
Yes, the point Councillor Lucas made is correct. This could be done through permitted development.
the site retained permitted development rights so it could be done through that route. And
Councillor Williamson, the issue with the toilet being removed, that would make, so
So the existing floor area, if nothing was to happen, is 5 .93 metres, sorry, 5 .93 metres
squared.
If the cupboard is removed, it will be 8 .7 metres squared.
It would still meet nationally described space standards for a single room, which is 7 .5
metres squared.
So removing the toilet or not, does it make a difference to the size of the room?
Thank you, Mahendra.
Councillor Whiskin, please.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:19:05
Thank you, Chairman.
We do have an issue that we have to balance between the needs of children and the needs of neighbours.
I do also reflect on there was a very similar application to one of these in Hanock Road
in Chigwell only a few weeks ago and the point was made that a lot of that could have been
done under permitted development.
What I do wonder is why such a relatively small dwelling is being targeted for this
type of conversion as it were rather than perhaps more larger properties which are perhaps
little bit more remote would be set away from the residential area will be more
appropriate but I don't think I can see there's any strong reasons which has
certainly having said that there's permitted development which would cover
most of this that we had grounds to refuse I'm afraid. Thank you Councillor
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:20:10
Whiskin. Councillor Datto. Thank you chairman I do understand neighbours concerns I just
wanted to, having read all the documents under the objections, I just wanted to bring to
the objectors' attention their management plan for the children's home, which is quite
detailed and not just the ratio of staff to child, but the children accommodated will
have low -to -mod support of emotional requirements.
The model of care will be children well -being based
and will avoid, try avoiding to cater for complex
or vulnerable children consequently,
no need for extra services.
Visitors will be, include Ofsted inspectors annually,
health and safety inspection monthly,
which is nominated by the organisational service provider, social workers every
six weeks and any visits to the home will be scheduled well in advance via
appointments, staff meetings will be away from the property and education support
and they are expecting, unless there is particular need to be home schooled
that they'll be placed in the school, they're expecting it to be long term and
and it does say their approach is the prime focus on providing support for local children
in Essex as a high number of children from Essex are placed outside the borough.
And I note that one of the informatives is to, let's see if I can find where it is,
the applicant or operator of the children's care home should contact, oh no sorry, it's
to actually take people from EFDC before anyone else as priority, and secondly from Essex.
The other thing that the objectors might be mollified about is that being often registered,
That gives another, if there are any problems,
there are ways of controlling that.
In fact, you have more control than if it was
a different neighbour coming in who was a bit objectionable.
It does say that the scheduled,
the children can leave the property
for scheduled contact visits, medical and health cheques,
shopping activities, and other outings.
And they'll always be accompanied by staff or supported.
The staff members will be informed if a child leaves their property.
There's curfew.
They must be indoors by 8 o 'clock.
After 9 o 'clock they have bedtime routine and can't access TV or the internet.
At weekends they must be indoors by 9 o 'clock.
In the case of a breach of curfew they follow the Filomena protocol about missing children
and things.
There are security provisions being put in place which include ring video doorbells,
secure locks, equipping external doors with soft sound alarms and CCTV at the front and
the back of the home focusing on the doors to ensure security without impacting the community
or the neighbours. It does also say in this management plan, and I think a management
plan is quite useful, that there will be regular meetings with neighbours and that the time
is anything more relevant. There's quite a lot there but you might want to have a look
at it. In addition, their design and access statement says the purpose of the home would
be to support children to build their confidence, helping them in developing and living in a
small family -based life skills and prepare for an adult outside the care provision. Of
course it's quite different being in a small house than being in an institution. And they
will be attending mainstream or special school and they expect it to be long -term nurturing
a guardian or family type environment for the medium to long term, similar to fostering.
So that might actually put some of your mind to rest.
As far as fear of crime and antisocial behaviour, it does say that they...
Sorry.
Thanks for that.
I'm just going to inquire with the planning officer whether or not any of the concerns,
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:25:04
and essentially the controls for Ofsted would meet the tests for planning conditions, i .e.
if they lost their Ofsted rating, would that meet the test, fair and reasonable test?
Basically additional conditions to provide some greater security on this.
I'll come back to you on that question.
I'm sorry, Ofsted is actually a separate regulatory body to planning so there's no connexion.
The applicant would need to register in Ofsted post planning consent and it's managed separately.
It's nothing to do with planning.
No, I know that. The point is whether there is any condition that could be added to provide some additional control.
Councillor Duda.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:26:14
I have clarity in the design access statement 3 .34, fear of crime and antisocial behaviour.
It says it will be regulated and controlled in compliance with Ofsted standards. That
might be what you might be looking at.
Yeah.
Really clear, are you?
And I think the point you're making,
Marie-Claire Tovey - 1:26:40
in a similar way to when we grant planning permission
but you need building regs, that's a separate consent
that's needed.
So if they didn't get their Ofsted validation
or accreditation, I'm not too sure of the term,
then they presumably couldn't operate as a children's home
under the Ofsted rules.
They're not actually separate to planning.
They would need both, in effect.
So you couldn't have that as effectively almost like a preoccupation condition somehow?
No, because it's separate.
No.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:27:09
I think that's rather shut me up. Councillor Whiskin.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:27:15
I think the question there is does it have to have ofstid
blessing and this question would be if there was no ofstid
If Ofsted was not involved, could the care home still exist?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:27:33
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:27:35
Could it still exist as a care home if there was no Ofsted overview involved?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:27:44
Marie-Claire Tovey - 1:27:46
Amanda Apcar - 1:27:48
My understanding is that Ofsted probably regulate some of the systems for the care home, but
that's a separate issue to what you're trying to decide tonight. You're deciding
whether you're going to grant the change of use. The change of use is not
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:28:09
dependent on there being off -stead permission. I think the point is is that
if there's fears that there is disruption potential because and there
is no off -stead regulation does that not affect the condition on granting
permission.
Amanda Apcar - 1:28:24
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:28:27
Cllr Chris Whitbread - 1:28:35
Sorry, sorry Chairman, I think everything I was going to say has been
covered by Councillor Dadd and yourself and whilst I completely understand the
residents concerns actually by going through this planning process by making
sure that it is offstead agreed. We're bringing into use a facility that is much needed in
this part of Essex. The pressures on children's services in particular, in particular this
type of unit, is desperate in the county and I'm really pleased that it is being done with
Essex because we had a similar application to this the other month, didn't we? When we
put an informative on there but this actually gives us a bit more strength in
the fact that it's been done in conjunction with Essex County Council.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:29:25
Thank you Councillor Whitworth. Sorry, Councillor Williamson. Thank you chair. I think we're
Cllr Ken Williamson - 1:29:32
straying into all sorts of areas here that nothing to do with planning. I mean
the people will need qualifications that work in the place but we're not
checking those in the planning application and I think the Ofsted
thing is that they need it to operate and we are straying away from planning.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:29:50
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:29:53
Councillor Dadd. Thank you, Chairman. Going back to the applicant's
comments, they are already part of Stoddart's Care group who do other things elsewhere and
they also are supported by ECC. So I think they are not a new group setting up. They
have got background and if you look at the solids care group website you'll
find that they have quite a high reputation in looking after to living
and looking after children in this sort of situation
Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:30:36
Thank You councillor dad council Lucas chairman just to give you some comfort
in your thoughts and I acknowledge where you was going with your thought process
But just going back to what I originally started with, the purpose of this full plan application
is to meet Ofsted requirements.
If they had no intention to meet Ofsted requirements, I don't think we'd be here this evening.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:30:53
Thank you, Councillor Lucas.
Members, we're going round and round and round.
I think let's take it to a vote.
The proposal tonight is change of use of the dwelling C3A to a children's home for up to
two children with a manager, a resident carer and additional carer who will sleep overnight
at 15 Forest Edge, Buckhurst Hill, IG95AD.
The recommendation was to approve with conditions.
Sorry, just to say that we can condition the management plan, which covers the Ofsted.
Okay, so if, how do we deal with that? So we have to add, someone has to propose that,
don't they? So Councillor David Proposer and a seconder, Councillor Lucas. Is that okay
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:32:08
to that to be added in? So. The proposal is to have a condition that the,
The management plan for the children's home as submitted in the application is a condition
that it must be put in place.
Does that make sense?
Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:32:38
I am happy to second that with the wording to be brought forward by the planning officer.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:32:41
Thank you. We have to take that to a vote, don't we?
Members let's take that to a vote with that condition. Rather than run through the whole
lot again, it's the change of use of dwelling to C3 to a children's home at 15 Forest Edge.
Members all those in favour please show.
Five, Chairman.
All those against.
None, Chairman.
And the abstention.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:33:13
Councillor Dodd, sorry, how did you vote?
Sorry?
How did you vote?
In favour.
In favour, okay, sorry.
Yep.
That's fine, thank you.
Members, thank you. That concludes the agenda items.

10 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Moving on to point 10, is any other business please?
Yes.
I don't have any other business unless Councillor Dadd does.
Councillor Dadd, please.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:33:52
Yes, I'm sorry. I wanted to ask the planning officers if they could bring a concise report to this committee and another planning committee
so that we are fully aware and also the objectors and the applicants are fully aware of the
changes in the appeal system with respect to written representations as from the 1st
of April 2026 whereby no further information or evidence can be provided after a decision
of refusal has been made and I think that would be really helpful to all concerned.
Thank you.
Very clear, please.
Yes, that's fine. I'll speak to the management team and get something, hopefully for the
agenda for the 1st of July.
Thank you.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:34:45
Members, I close the meeting at 8 .34. Thank you.
Webcast Finished - 1:35:00
Thank you.
Cllr Clive Amos
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Clive Amos
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 Mary Dadd
District councillor for Ongar ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Will Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jodie Lucas
District councillor for Waltham Abbey West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Geoff Shaw
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Reform UK
View profile Cllr Geoff Shaw
Marie-Claire Tovey
Team Manager - Applications and Appeals
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Marie-Claire Tovey
Cllr Chris Whitbread
District councillor for Roydon and Lower Nazeing ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Chris Whitbread
Cllr Ken Williamson
District councillor for Buckhurst Hill West ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Graham Wiskin
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Graham Wiskin