Interactive webcast player

Planning Committee B
Wednesday, 1st July 2026 at 7:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Will Kauffman
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Will Kauffman
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mary Dadd
  2. Cllr Will Kauffman
  3. Cllr Mary Dadd
  4. Cllr Will Kauffman
  5. Cllr Richard Bassett
  6. Cllr Will Kauffman
Share this agenda point
  1. Sukhi Dhadwar
  2. Cllr Will Kauffman
  3. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  4. Cllr Will Kauffman
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Cllr Will Kauffman
  7. Sukhi Dhadwar
  8. Cllr Will Kauffman
  9. Cllr Geoff Shaw
  10. Sukhi Dhadwar
  11. Cllr Geoff Shaw
  12. Sukhi Dhadwar
  13. Cllr Geoff Shaw
  14. Sukhi Dhadwar
  15. Cllr Mary Dadd
  16. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  17. Cllr Will Kauffman
  18. Cllr Geoff Shaw
  19. Cllr Will Kauffman
  20. Legal Representative
  21. Cllr Will Kauffman
  22. Cllr Will Kauffman
  23. Cllr Mary Dadd
  24. Sukhi Dhadwar
  25. Cllr Mary Dadd
  26. Cllr Will Kauffman
  27. Cllr Will Kauffman
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Sukhi Dhadwar
  2. Cllr Will Kauffman
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Cllr Will Kauffman
  5. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  6. Cllr Will Kauffman
  7. Cllr Mary Dadd
  8. Sukhi Dhadwar
  9. Cllr Will Kauffman
  10. Sukhi Dhadwar
  11. Cllr Will Kauffman
  12. Sukhi Dhadwar
  13. Cllr Will Kauffman
  14. Sukhi Dhadwar
  15. Cllr Will Kauffman
  16. Cllr Clive Amos
  17. Cllr Will Kauffman
  18. Cllr Jamie Braha
  19. Sukhi Dhadwar
  20. Cllr Will Kauffman
  21. Legal Representative
  22. Cllr Will Kauffman
  23. Cllr Jamie Braha
  24. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  25. Cllr Will Kauffman
  26. Sukhi Dhadwar
  27. Cllr Will Kauffman
  28. Cllr Graham Wiskin
  29. Cllr Will Kauffman
  30. Legal Representative
  31. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  32. Cllr Will Kauffman
  33. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  34. Sukhi Dhadwar
  35. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  36. Sukhi Dhadwar
  37. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  38. Cllr Will Kauffman
  39. Cllr Jamie Braha
  40. Cllr Will Kauffman
  41. Sukhi Dhadwar
  42. Cllr Will Kauffman
  43. Legal Representative
  44. Cllr Will Kauffman
  45. Cllr Mary Dadd
  46. Sukhi Dhadwar
  47. Cllr Will Kauffman
  48. Legal Representative
  49. Cllr Jamie Braha
  50. Sukhi Dhadwar
  51. Cllr Jamie Braha
  52. Sukhi Dhadwar
  53. Cllr Will Kauffman
  54. Legal Representative
  55. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  56. Sukhi Dhadwar
  57. Cllr Mary Dadd
  58. Legal Representative
  59. Cllr Will Kauffman
  60. Cllr Mary Dadd
  61. Legal Representative
  62. Cllr Mary Dadd
  63. Cllr Will Kauffman
  64. Sukhi Dhadwar
  65. Legal Representative
  66. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  67. Cllr Mary Dadd
  68. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  69. Cllr Mary Dadd
  70. Cllr Will Kauffman
  71. Legal Representative
  72. Cllr Will Kauffman
  73. Cllr Jaymey McIvor
  74. Cllr Mary Dadd
  75. Sukhi Dhadwar
  76. Cllr Will Kauffman
  77. Cllr Mary Dadd
  78. Cllr Will Kauffman
  79. Sukhi Dhadwar
  80. Cllr Will Kauffman
  81. Sukhi Dhadwar
  82. Cllr Will Kauffman
  83. Cllr Will Kauffman
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

I've got a...
I've got a...
I've got a...
Hi Sue.
Hi, sorry about that.
Could I ask you to mute yourself please?
Yeah.
Can you hear me?
We can. The meter's about to start.
Right.
I'll mute myself now. Thank you.
I thought it was automatic.
Members, it stands for me to read the webcasting introduction at point one, which is that I

1 WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION

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 consented to being filmed and the
possible use of those images and sound recordings.
If any members or 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.
Once again, good evening everyone. Just by way of introduction, I am Councillor Will Kaufman. I will be chairing this meeting.
To my left is our Vice Chairman tonight, Councillor Mary Dadd.
To her left is Planning Officer Tzuki Dadwa.
And our legal representatives to the left, Amanda Apkart and Rob Walker of Trelos.
And to my right is Louis Beardmore from Democratic Services and Gary Woodall.
and on the far right is our webcaster tonight, Matt Picking.

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

Moving on to item two, there is advice for public speakers.
A planning committee set out on pages three to four
of the agenda.
I believe the democratic services team will have briefed
the members as to their requirements
and their three minute allocation when they speak.
Ward members for the committee are reminded
they cannot determine applications within their own ward. When this occurs appropriately nominated
substitutes may be used for specific applications. Thank you. Item three is apologies for absence

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

please. I've had apologies from Councillor Lucas and apologies from Councillor Williamson.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:02:36
Thank you. From that do we have any substitute members for tonight?
Oh, sorry, of course you should.

4 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Substituting for Councillor Lucas is Councillor Bassett and substituting for Councillor Williamson
is Councillor Braha.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:02:51
Thank you. Members, do we have any declarations of interest tonight, please?

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

6 MINUTES

Moving on to item six, we have the minutes from the committee held on the 3rd of June,
2026. Please may I take those minutes as agreed?
Sorry everyone. Councillor Dab would like to comment on it.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:03:17
Thank you. I have actually looked at the recording again and I have got three amendments I think
reflected better. And that is resolved, it's item 6 on page 6, in relation to the nazing
one. Resolved it says the committee deferred the application for the following reasons,
conditions one and two and I don't think that reflected what the committee discussed. So
it wasn't just to review the traffic calming scheme and whether the 30 mile an hour limit
should commence from the laundry lane and to consider the provision of additional signalised
crossing near the site entrance, but it did relate to condition 22 and it should reflect
that because it was review of the transport situation to make sure that it is safe and
appropriate access is provided in promoting sustainable and accessible development and
brought in accordance with policies T1 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan
and the MPPF and I think it what the committee thought at the time was that
it hadn't properly been reviewed and I would suggest that that is worded
accordingly as one suggestion and then for number two it says explore flooding
concerns further up the road and whether there is scope for further improvements
but in fact we were concerned, having seen the surface water flooding map, we were concerned about the on and off site flood issues
including the fluvial and fluvial surface water and whether further improvements could be made.
And I would like to propose those two changes.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Dadd. Do I need a seconder for that?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:05:27
Councillor Bassett, thank you. With that in mind, members, are we happy to agree the meeting
minutes with those amendments? The other amendment is for any other business
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:05:41
to the minutes still, which states,
Councillor Emdad asked if a report could be produced
to inform councillors and members of the public
of the implications to the changes to planning procedure
in the appeal system relating to applications
dated on or after 1st of April, 2026.
That is not what I actually said.
Again, and of course, implications mean different things
to different parties.
What I actually asked for was a brief report, but I think it would still make the right sense if just the words of the implications are removed.
So it reads, Councillor M Dadd asked if a report could be produced to inform councillors and members of the public of the changes to the planning procedures in the appeals system, etc.
Thank you members can I have your agreement that that is amended
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:06:39
accordingly. Thank you. Members we therefore move on to the first item for
Sorry Chairman, just a quick update following the issues of nazing the one that was
referred. I can say that myself Councillor Whitbread someone from our
Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:07:00
someone from Essex Highways, someone from our flood team,
plus the developer, plus someone else,
it was about six or seven of us,
reviewed the flooding and highways issues.
And we had a, shall we say, a quite comprehensive chat
for about an hour and a half.
And they have agreed to take some of the things
we suggested, and at the next meeting,
the main thing I said was, especially with flood,
is can we have something simplified?
We know there's an existing problem with water flow there,
but some of this is to do with what's currently there.
It's not to do with the application.
And we needed to clarify that.
And the other point on the traffic was we looked at,
we couldn't take the 30 mile an hour all the way back,
but we could start with a 40, then going down to the 30
and also increase all of the signage coming up to there
to try and make cars slow down, but he says you'll never stop the idiot.
Thank you, Councillor Bassett.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:08:07
So therefore I don't think there's any requirement for any adjustments you made to anything there.
I can proceed to the first item for determination this evening, which is EPF 84.

7 EPF/0052/26 - 84 The Plain, Epping

EPF 052 -26 which is 84, the plane in Epping, which is shown on pages 8 to 12 of the agenda.
That item will be presented tonight by Suki Dadwah.
Thank you, Chairman.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:08:39
Before I start my presentation, can I request that Condition 1 on page 12 of the agenda
be deleted from the conditions as this application is retrospective and therefore this condition
condition is not needed.
This application relates to 84, the plane in Epping and seeks retrospective planning
permission for a loft conversion with a rear dormer which extends over the ground floor
extension, a single storey rear extension and front porch extension.
In terms of consultation, six neighbouring objections have been received.
These raise concerns relating to the similarity to a previously refused scheme, the impact
on the character and appearance of the area overlooking and general residential amenity
loss. The application site is located on the western side of the plane. The area is residential
in character and lies outside of the green belt and is not subject to any heritage designation.
From the aerial imagery, members can see the pattern of development in the area. For example,
number 68 has its own rear dormers and is a two -storey property. 66A is a two -storey property
which has been extended. Sorry 68 has a half hip roof extension as well
and 68 also has a front extension.
This illustrates the varied built form along the street.
Both these neighbours are on higher ground than the application site.
This slide shows photographs of the rear dormer.
The top was taken from the first floor of 66A, the plane, and the bottom one is from
the first floor of 68, the plane.
This slide shows photos of the site. The top left is of the front elevation. The front
boundary wall is not included in the application. The top right is a view of 68, the plane from
the application site rear garden. The bottom left is a view of 66A, the plane from the
site, Weir Garden. The bottom right is a view looking out from the dormer window.
This slide shows the existing and proposed block plans of the site. There's a minimum
back -to -back distance of 19 metres from the extension to 68, the plane. The proposed
The proposal does not extend beyond the existing building line of the bungalow.
The proposal is therefore consistent with the character of this part of the plane.
Whilst the rear garden space is reduced, sufficient private amenity space remains for reasonable
enjoyment of the occupiers.
Overall, the development is not considered to result in an unacceptable loss of light,
privacy or outlook. This slide shows the pre -existing layout and
elevations of the application property. This slide shows the proposed layout and elevations.
Turning first to policy H1, this policy resists the losses of bungalows primarily because
of the accessibility and adaptability benefits that they provide. In this case, although
Although the proposal does introduce additional accommodation within the roof space, the key
point is that the ground floor bedrooms are retained.
As a result, the property would still continue to function as a bungalow in practical terms.
So overall, it's not considered that this development would result in the loss of a
bungalow or reduce housing choice for people with accessibility needs, including older
residents.
On that basis, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy H1.
With regard to design and layout, the rear extension effectively fills the gap between the existing rear gables,
while the door most set in from the sides and positioned centrally within the rear roof slope.
At the front, the porch is located neatly between the existing gables and has a subservient gable roof,
so it remains visually secondary to the main dwelling.
The development is considered proportionate to the existing dwelling and visually acceptable within the surrounding street scene.
As such, the proposal is not considered to cause excessive harm to the character and
appearance of the wider area.
Members will note that their previous application, reference EPF forward slash 2480 of 24, was
refused for two reasons.
Firstly, due to its design, siting and scale, the proposed development was considered inappropriate
to both the site and the surrounding area.
it was viewed as poor design and unsympathetic to the character of the locality,
and therefore considered to conflict with Policy DM9.
Secondly, the design and scale of the proposal gave rise to an unacceptable overlooking and perception of being overlooked.
This was considered harmful to the living conditions of both the house property and neighbouring occupiers,
again conflicting with Policy D9.
Turning to the current scheme, the proposed extensions are now considered to have an acceptable appearance.
The omission of the balcony and the full height rear doors means that the development no longer
results in the level of overlooking that previously concerned both officers and neighbours.
As such, given that dormers are a feature of the private realm within this area, the
proposal is now considered to provide an acceptable level of amenity for both the site and surrounding
properties.
It is for these reasons that the proposal is considered acceptable by officers and therefore
has a recommendation for approval. Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:14:43
Thank you, Suki. Sorry, Councillor McIver, just good evening. Do you have any declarations
of interest, please? None, Chairman. Thank you.
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 0:14:51
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:14:53
Thank you, Senator. Chairman, also to point out that under the
Constitution, because Councillor McIver came in and the item was already started, he can
have no involvement in this item either by way of debate or vote.
Am I able to overrule that or is that just...
It's in the constitution.
Sorry, microphone.
Mr Donald Benton who is here in person, sir.
Yes.
you would like to say your thoughts. Thank you.
Public Speaker - 0:15:30
Yes, I represent both myself and my neighbours tonight.
We live behind this site and we are directly affected by this development.
My architect Martin Pattie has already written to members before
today highlighting the issues we have which I will summarise for you.
Firstly, this is wrongly described by the planet officer as a rear dormer
conversion. It is actually a two -storey rear
extension to a bungalow built over a whole new ground and first floor section.
This may seem trivial but it emphasises the extension bringing a new two -storey
development far closer to our homes than it did before to within seven metres
from our rear garden boundaries. This includes two large bedroom windows which
look straight into our back gardens and to the rear of our homes. This severely
affects our privacy and creates an oppressive sense of enclosure. Moreover
However, these impacts are worse now than the scheme that was refused by this council in March 2025.
That scheme had a rear balcony, but as per the plans that have been circulated this week,
these clearly show that the dorm itself was in fact much smaller then and set further back away from our garden boundaries.
It is therefore doesn't make sense that the officers can now consider that the current application has less impact.
However, the 2025 proposal was refused not just on its balcony, but also on the scale,
the siting and the design of the dorma.
In 2025, officers described it as, and I quote directly, resulting in overlooking and a perception
of being overlooked due to the design and scale of the rear dorma and balcony, adversely
affecting the living conditions of the neighbouring sites.
Officers now say the new scheme removes elements that led to the previous concerns, which were
the raised roof height, the large fore -height rear doors and a balcony with a glass balustrade.
However, these were only part of that refusal.
It was also refused on its scale, its siting and its proximity to neighbours that allowed overlooking.
These remain and indeed are now worse given that the actual normal windows are bigger and closer to both our houses.
The officers' view is not justified and does not tally with their assessment in 2025.
It is the same plan in case of its on today's retrospective application who
determined the 2025 refusal. The applicant first tried to get permission
for a large rear extension that was refused. He then thought he could build
this larger two -storey extension as permitted development but he was wrong.
This two -storey extension was built without permission and with zero regard
for our amenity. He is now seeking to regularise the mistake he made. I would
therefore urge members to refuse this unauthorised development due to its very
obvious harmful impact it has on both our own and my neighbours' homes. It has
clearly not addressed the reasons for refusal in the 2025
proposals here and there is no justification to alter that view now.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:18:27
Thank you. Thank you sir. It says in my notes that the agent,
Geehan Bella is going to be speaking. Yes. I was on Tings. First of all I'd just like to say I'm quite shocked to see Matthew on here because we actually had a conversation regarding our building and he said that he had no objections to it at all.
the only objection that he had was that the balcony and he only refused it because he got refused for a balcony,
which so I'm quite shocked.
Just to let you know the height of the bungalow has not changed at all.
When you actually enter the building, it still looks as though it's the bungalow.
It has no overlooking. We're surrounded by two and three storey buildings
around all of us and in fact it's our privacy that is quite overwhelming
because everyone is a two and three storey building. Our next door but one
neighbour has recently had a back extension which was no problem but it
just seems that since we've moved here despite our neighbours you know coming
round coming into the house saying how lovely it is and how much they are happy
that it's now being looked after. There's some untruth with this because we feel
like we've spoke to a lot of our neighbours regarding this beforehand and
the scale of the actual building has not changed. The height is the same and
Matthew has just said that the back walls is now closer to his back garden
that's untrue because both lengths of our houses have not been extended it is
just the middle bit.
So overall the actual house itself,
the only extension that has adapted the width
and length of the house is the front porch.
All we have done at the back is connect
the two connecting walls.
I'm assuming that's it.
I think she's frozen.
Well, I'm sorry.
We only found out today that we have this meeting.
We didn't actually have, well, I didn't have any communication
regarding it.
But regarding the privacy and things like that,
that you can see from the images that there should
be no privacy wars at all.
And yet, if there was any, it should be us,
because everyone overlooks into our garden and our space.
We are a bungalow.
we certainly are not at the height of a two -storey building. We have a two -storey building next to us
on both sides and still our bungalow and dormer is shorter than these houses.
Are you still... I think...
Yeah, I'm still here. Can you hear me?
Yes, it froze for a second, but you've got about 15 seconds left.
Yeah, I mean, we have no neighbours in front of us.
Obviously, the forest is in front of us.
And all I was saying was that our house now, even with a dormer,
is still a significant amount shorter than every other house.
Our neighbours, the neighbours at the back.
I mean right at the back of us we have a three -storey building.
We have a two -storey home with a dormer on top of that.
Thank you.
I think we'll bring it to an end there.
Thank you for your presentation.
Thank you.
Suki, can I just ask, do we have any actual photographs apart from what looks like a reversed,
we've got a reverse drawing here?
So in the presentation I just got back.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:22:27
The height of the bundle is 4 .5 metres.
But we haven't actually got any...
Sorry, so that's the views from the neighbours, that's the application site.
We haven't actually got any photographs of this.
Yes, the previous one.
The previous one wasn't built.
Can we go back to the slide for a second?
Sorry, Siki.
So that, the rear of the first...
That's what's built.
Is that the neighbour's?
Yes.
That's the neighbour's view from the rear elevation from first floor of 66A, the plane.
So this is what we're looking at.
Okay, fine. Thank you, that's fine.
So can we leave that up? That would be great.
So members, the recommendation is to approve with conditions.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:23:27
We haven't got any ward councillors in the room with us. Can I have your thoughts on the matter please?
Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:23:37
Thank you. May I just ask what is the back to back dimension from those windows that
you can see there to the windows of the houses behind? Because I believe under the planning
rules this should be no more than 25 metres and it looks if those windows there are seven
metres from the boundary, just looking at the plan on the previous one, it looks as
if they're closer than the 25 metres,
which is the minimum clearance between bedroom windows.
So I think you're taking that from the Essex Design Guide
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:24:10
and which states 25 metres.
However, that's guidance, it's not policy.
What we would look at is given that the site
is in an urban area and there's properties
which have back -to -back distances less than that,
As long as it's consistent with the character of the area, it's still acceptable.
So 25 metres is actually quite generous and the standard distance that is considered acceptable
is 20 metres in Epping.
The distance between this application and 68 is about 19 metres.
But the difference is because 68 and 66 are on higher land and the bungalow is on lower land, the impact is slightly less.
Obviously they have got loss of view, but loss of private view isn't the same as being loss of privacy.
But then you've got to consider whether you consider that distance to be loss of privacy.
Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:25:33
So with respect, you seem to be changing the rules to suit yourself.
I've been applying for planning for 30 or 40, 50 years I think, and 25 metres has always
been the rule.
To change it just like that because someone's already built the house I think is out of
order.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:25:53
So if you take 66 the plane which recently, a couple of years back, got planning permission
for three houses. The distance from those three houses and 78 and 80 from the top of
my head was about 20 metres. So it's consistent with that.
This is only 19.
Say again?
This is only 19.
This is only 19, yes.
Less.
Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:26:16
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:26:20
Yeah, it is less, yeah. But the neighbours are higher. So the plane was on higher ground,
so the impact would have been greater.
Thank you Councillor Shaw. I'm going to go to Mary Dadd for a second.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:26:32
Thank you Mr Chairman. I asked Martin Pattie for details and it is seven metres from
the 84 windows, rear windows and the block plan shows is out of, is actually
old and it doesn't show the extension to 66a but from their bedroom window to the
boundary is eight metres as I understand it and ten from their dining room. Both
of those added to the seven comes under supposedly and I couldn't find a policy
for it 20 metres in EFDC. I think the description if I can say that's
answering that point and it is far less than that.
But the description is very misleading.
It is not a dormer.
It is a two, I have been to the site,
it is a two -storey extension.
And if you can't see it very clearly
from that particular one,
but that is not a dormer coming out.
It does fit into the roof,
but the base of it is over the rear extension.
and not only that, it's not as for the plans.
Perhaps you could show what the plans are,
because the plans show two windows and those are three.
Yeah, so they are three instead.
And it also says about the materials will be matching.
Sorry, can you go back to the photograph?
And the first floor where you've got those windows sits on different coloured tiles.
They're red tiles, so it doesn't match either.
But it's definitely not a dorm.
It's a two -storey extension that slots into that roof.
Excuse me, excuse me, can you shut up?
I think that the refusal, it says that it is significantly different from the previous
one.
I can't see that the refusal reasons have changed because the refusal reasons for the
last one was number one, due to its design, siting and scale, the proposed development
is inappropriate to the site and the surrounding area.
The proposal is poor design, unsympathetic to character
of the local area, and doesn't comply with policy DM9.
Second one, due to the design and scale of the proposed
development, it would allow a degree of overlooking,
which it certainly does, and result in a perception
of being overlooked.
This would adversely impact the living conditions
of the subject and neighbouring sites.
It fails to comply with policy DM9.
And I, having been there, it does definitely overlook number 66A.
It's quite clear about that.
I don't think I've got anything else to add at this stage, but I think that we should
be looking at and protecting existing privacy.
Thank you Councillor Dad. Councillor Whiskin. Thank you Chairman. I was going to ask for
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:30:10
the same scale drawing. Clearly this image is completely different to the drawing which
has been put in this application. Those windows are far taller from what I can see in the
perspective and I think they must overlook. They are way too far out of scale from my
point of view. Thank You councillor Whiskin. Members do we have any further
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:30:36
Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:30:47
comments on the application please? No if we do not. Oh sorry I think it actually
sends the wrong message out if because the applicant hasn't applied for
development, hasn't gone through the correct route, has just gone ahead and built it, it
doesn't comply and therefore I think it needs rejecting.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:31:09
Sorry, please can you let the members speak?
I mean the public speakers, they get three minutes to speak when it is the public speakers
turn to speak and then that's it.
It's not like a court where you get to ask questions backwards and forwards, only in
very rare circumstances.
I'm sorry.
Amanda, Miss Abgar.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to, just to reflect on that,
Legal Representative - 0:31:58
just a comment a moment ago about the application
and an application not being forthcoming
before the work's undertaken.
That is not material consideration in the sense
it's not an offence for someone to carry out development
without planning permission.
It only becomes an offence once an enforcement notice is issued.
So in order to make a lawful decision today, I think that the merits of the application
itself need to be taken into account, not what's happened before or after.
Councillor Jackson, do you want to say something?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:32:31
Sorry, please.
Chairman, sorry, it's Laura online.
I keep muting the potential applicant as she is trying to speak.
Perhaps you could just make it clear that she doesn't have the opportunity.
Last warning, otherwise we will remove you from the meeting.
Thank you.
Five against, chair.
Any abstentions?
Thank you.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:33:18
We need reasons for refusal.
Proposal with reasons for refusal.
Please.
Councillor Bassett, will you, sorry, maybe.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:33:40
Well, can I suggest that it's misleading to say
that it is a dormer when it is,
the floor is over the extension.
So it's effectively a two -storey extension.
But also it doesn't match the plans that are put forward.
The windows are not the same as on the plan.
Sorry, Councillor Dadd.
Can I just say the permission is on the plans.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:34:16
So irrespective of what's there, if what's there doesn't match what is in the plans and
We found the plans acceptable, but they didn't carry out the plans, they carried on with
what they had.
We could take enforcement action against what they had.
What we should consider is just the plans and why the plans are unacceptable.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:34:40
I would suggest that it's still due to design, siting, scale, the proposed development, inappropriate
to the site and the surrounding area.
The proposal is poor design and unsympathetic to character of the local area.
It fails to comply with policy DM9 of the EFDC local plan.
And secondly, due to the design and scale of the proposed development, it would allow
a degree of overlooking and result in the perception of being overlooked.
And that would adversely impact the living conditions of the subject, or not necessarily
the subject, of the neighbouring sites.
It fails to comply with policy DM9.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:35:22
Thank you, Councillor Dadd. Please can I have a seconder for Councillor Whiskin.
A show of hands if we are agreeing to refuse the application for the reasons as set out.
Six.
Thank you, members. That item is refused.

8 EPF/0455/26 - Rear of 268-278 High Road, Loughton

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:35:47
members the next item is item 8 which is 286 High Road, Lausanne but that has been withdrawn.
Thank you Councillor Dadd, I've just been suggested. Would you like to leave the chamber?
You're happy to stay? Sorry, moving back to item 8, that has actually
been withdrawn. The local town council has lifted its objection to the item so it has
been returned to officers for approval under their delegated powers.
I don't think there's anything further to say on that, Ms. Dadwah.
So therefore we move on to item 9, which is EPF 160524, which is land to the west of Tyler's
Green south of A414.

9 EPF/1605/24 - Land to the west of Tyler's Green & South of A414

Presenting that item is again Ms. Dadwah.
It is an application with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of 185 to 195 dwellings,
five gypsy and traveller pitches, together with associated parking and landscaping.
Ready when you are.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:37:21
Thank you Chairman.
The application site extends around 7 .3 hectares and has an irregular boot shape.
It comprises three arable fields with access
currently taken from the A414 to the north.
A public footpath runs through the site,
linking Rickeridge Lane to Blackhorse Lane.
In terms of its surroundings,
the site is bounded by the A414 to the north,
existing residential properties
along Blackhorse Lane to the east,
and allocated development sites
to the west and northeast. It adjoins the memorial grounds and St Andrew's School to the south.
Several trees on and around the site are protected by tree preservation order
and there are three nearby listed buildings.
This slide shows an aerial view of the site. The top right is a view towards Black Horse Lane,
The middle view is of the existing gated access from the A414 and the bottom view is looking
west along the A414.
This proposal relates to one of the principal allocated sites within the adopted local plan
and forms part of the wider North Wild Bassett Strategic Master Plan.
The application before members concerns allocation NWBR1 which sits within this coordinated master
plan framework and is guided by policy P6 of the local plan. Members may recall that
on 8 April 2026 permission was granted for the neighbouring NWBR3 allocation under reference
EPF 2587 of 23. That scheme comprised of a mixed use development included up to 780 residential
units, a primary school and playing fields and local centre with retail and early years
and community uses.
It also delivered significant green infrastructure
and other supporting infrastructure.
The site is closely, is directly adjacent to the,
and closely linked to the NWR3 site.
Sharing access arrangements
and the wider movement network.
As such, it forms part of a comprehensive
and coordinated approach to growth,
contributing to the delivery of new housing,
infrastructure and green space in line with the overall master plan.
A strategic master plan framework for development within North Ward Bassett was endorsed by
cabinet in March 24 and is therefore a key material consideration in the determination
of this application.
The current proposal broadly accords with this endorsed framework.
The NWB R1 site located west of Tyler's Green is a residential allocation that forms part
the wider Norfolk Bassett Master Plan. It is expected to deliver around 200 homes, contributing
to the overall target of at least 1 ,050 homes across the Master Plan area at generally 30
to 45 dwellings per hectare. Alongside housing, the site must also provide five gypsy and
traveller pitches and contribute to the wider infrastructure such as the community facilities,
education provision and healthcare. It is not a standalone site but part of a coordinated
development where infrastructure and services are shared across all allocations. Access
is a key requirement with the development relying on the new and improved junction onto
the A414 via Vicarage Lane West and integration into a bus -enabled spine road. There's also
a strong emphasis on sustainable travel including new pedestrian and cycle links, particularly
an east -west route connecting the village to the airfield. The scheme must be landscape -led
ensuring all homes are within 150 metres of green space and contributing to a
wider network of open spaces and green corridors. Drainage features biodiversity
suds and high quality public rooms should be provided and should be central
to the design. The development should reflect the village character and should
provide mostly two -storey housing with some limited three -storey elements and a
These edges are required to protect neighbouring properties using green buffers and maintaining
privacy.
Finally, any planning application must comply with the Strategic Master Plan's framework.
This means addressing key constraints like flood risk and heritage setting and providing
full technical evidence.
Any departures from the Master Plan must be clearly justified.
This slide shows how the development could look like.
However, since the application is in outline form, the details at this stage are illustrative
only as a design, layout and appearance will be dealt with at the reserve matters stage.
Parameter plans set the framework at outline stage fixing key aspects like land use, access,
scale and green infrastructure. They provide certainty while allowing detailed design to
evolve later. The plan includes primary and secondary vehicle routes alongside strong
network of cycleways and footpaths. Green corridors will provide attractive landscaped routes
for walking and cycling that link the site to the school, community centre and wider master plan, area and existing village.
Originally, access to NWBR1 was to be temporary or bus only, however Essex County Council confirms the proposed A414 access is safe and policy compliant.
safety improvements include pedestrian refuge islands, a new two metre footway to Talbot roundabout,
an upgraded kerbine plus a proposed 40 mph speed limit secured by highways legislation.
These measures will significantly improve pedestrian safety and connectivity, particularly from Vicarage Lane, Prowell 93.
There is also potential for a circular bus service serving the wider area.
Given these benefits and the difficulty of enforcing temporary access, the proposed access
is considered acceptable as a permanent solution.
Green and blue infrastructure is central to the scheme, with a network of green corridors
and smaller links connecting the site.
Around 1 .3 hectares of green space is proposed, including play areas, informal spaces and
village green near Black Horse Lane.
Existing hedgerows and trees are largely retained and enhanced, supporting biodiversity and
delivering net gain.
Surface water will be managed through swales and an attenuation basin to the north -west
and an enhanced pond to the south, providing both drainage and recreational benefits.
The landscape buffer along Black Horse Lane will soften the edge of development and protect
residential amenity.
Concerns about the play area near Rectory House are noted, but it will function as a
well overlooked village green, providing natural surveillance.
Moving this space elsewhere would not be viable as it would compromise housing numbers or
require green infrastructure.
Detailed design will be addressed at reserve matters stage to ensure that neighbouring
amenities are protected.
Importantly, no vehicular access is proposed from Black Horse Lane and final layout details
will be confirmed later.
This plan identifies the location of residential development, including potential locations
for five gypsy and traveller pitches, sustainable drainage systems, a pumping station, green
spaces and hedgerows, recreation and community areas, an acoustic fence, a bus stop and a
school drop -off point, as well as vehicular and pedestrian cycle access points.
The proposal introduces three distinct density zones across the site.
The highest density area at around 40 to 55 dwellings per hectare is located on the western
end close to memorial fields and the NWBR3 allocation where a new centre is proposed.
Medium density development ranging from 35 to 15 dwellings per hectare forms a majority
of the scheme and is concentrated in the central area.
Lower density housing at 25 to 35 dwellings per hectare is positioned along the edges
of the site, particularly near Black Horse Lane in Tyler's Farm, to ensure a more sensitive
relationship with existing development.
The majority of development is proposed to be at 2 to 2 .5 storeys with around 15 % to
25 % of buildings reaching up to three storeys, approximately 11 .5 metres in height. In more
sensitive locations adjoining existing homes, including parts of Tyler's Farm, heights will
step down to two storeys with a maximum height of 7 .8 metres to ensure a more compatible
relationship with these properties. The proposal will result in less than substantial harm to
heritage assets, most notably to the setting of the Grade 2 listed Tyler's Farmhouse due to the
of open land and the introduction of built development.
However, this level of change is expected and being planned for, as both the application
site and the land associated with Tyler's farmhouse are allocated for development.
The harm is firmly assessed within the mid -range of less than substantial, with only limited
impacts on other nearby listed buildings.
In line with national policy, this harm has been clearly weighed against public benefits.
It's concluded that the harm is outweighed by the significant benefits of the scheme,
particularly the delivery of new homes, including policy -compliant affordable housing and gypsy
traveller pitches.
This slide shows the agreed congestion mitigation scheme for the M11 Junction 7, which has been
developed in consultation with National Highways and Essex County Council.
The scheme has been agreed with the applicants.
The application for this application agrees to the mitigation works and is willing to
make a proportionate financial contribution towards the works.
The proposal includes a comprehensive package of planning obligations that will deliver
40 % affordable housing on site alongside the provision of open space and equipped play
areas.
There are also contributions towards local community facilities, including improvements
to the Queens Hall and Memorial playing fields.
Based on the provision of 195 homes, a library contribution of £15 ,560 is required.
In terms of healthcare, the development will provide £463 ,632 towards NHS primary community
and mental health services.
A number of significant education contributions are also included.
£424 ,200 for early years and childcare provision, £1 ,410 ,000 towards primary education, £1 ,140 ,000
towards secondary education, £234 ,966 for school transport
and £234 ,906 towards special education needs
and disability provision.
In addition, there's a biodiversity net gain
monitoring contribution of £14 ,971
and the payment of £124 ,995 towards the mitigation for air pollution around the FSAC.
During construction, the developer will also support employment and skills training initiatives.
In terms of highways and transport, the scheme includes contributions towards the Talbot
a requirement to enter into a legal agreement to deliver highway works including further
feasibility works in relation to access arrangements at Church Lane, a public transport contribution
of £542 ,706 to support local bus services, a travel plan including travel vouchers, information
packs and ongoing monitoring. Finally, there's a contribution of £423 ,892 towards the Emile
of injunction seven improvement scheme.
With payment triggers to be agreed in consultation
with National Highways and Essex County Council.
At present, the council cannot demonstrate
a five -year housing land supply,
so the tilted balance is engaged.
This means their presumption of sustainable development.
The site itself is allocated under policy P6,
and the proposal aligns
with the agreed master plan framework.
The scheme delivers a number of significant benefits,
including new homes with 40 % affordable provision
and the provision of a gypsy and traveller accommodation,
as well as green infrastructure by diversity gains
and wider transport and infrastructure improvements.
In heritage terms, the proposal results
in less than substantial harm,
but this is expected given the site's allocation.
And importantly, the harm is outweighed
by the public benefits.
The application therefore has an officer recommendation
for approval subject to the completion
of a Section 106 Agreement and conditions as laid out in the report.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Ms Dadwa.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:51:15
We have two speakers.
First from North Wood Parish Council, we have Susan De Luca joining us on Teams.
You have three minutes.
Thank you.
Mr. Luca, we are ready for you to speak if you are listening.
And you are on mute.
She is still on mute.
I quite frankly don't know what more we can really do.
Is she a Councillor?
Mr Luca, we're ready for you to speak if you're on mute.
Or has Laura muted her?
I'm here Chairman but you can't unmute participants, you can unmute them.
So she needs to try and find a mute button and press it.
An option would be to rejoin the meeting, if that's alright with you Chairman.
Do you want to try again, Mr. Luca?
Or no?
Public Speaker - 0:53:51
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good evening, committee members, and thank you for affording me this opportunity to speak
this evening in support of this proposed development on behalf of the applicant who is also the
landowner of the site.
We have worked with the council for eight years now in bringing the site
forward since it was first submitted for the council's call for sites
consultation back in 2018. Since then SORDERS have worked with both the council
as well as local stakeholders such as a neighbour planning group and we have
engaged through the pre -app and master planning process. The site was
allocated in a local plan when it was adopted in March 2023 and when the site
was also therefore removed from the Greenbelt. Following allocation we have
We've prepared the application now for consideration
by committee tonight.
And as part of this preparation,
we carried out a public consultation
whereby we met with local residents, the parish council,
St. Andrew's Primary School,
and representatives of Memorial Plainfield
and Community Centre,
which helped to inform and shape the proposals
before you tonight.
We've continued to work proactively
alongside council officers for nearly two years
since the application was submitted in August, 2024.
And we've provided the necessary amended plans
and additional information to ensure the proposals
are now fully compliant with the local plan allocation, with local and national planning
policy and the proposals also fully accord with the wider strategic master plan framework
for North Weald Bassett. The site features a significant amount of green infrastructure
as set out in the officer's report, including an enhanced buffer to Black Horse Lane and
multiple interlinked green spaces and play spaces. The proposals would also achieve a
BNG uplift on site of just over 13 % comfortably over the 10 % requirement. We've also worked
alongside council officers in agreeing the heads of terms on the section 1 legal
agreement which you I believe you've seen the details already. This includes
significant financial contributions towards local services such as
identified improvements to the memorial playing fields, Queens Hall Community
Centre, towards primary and secondary education, towards local health services
and highway improvements to name just a few. The direct access from the A414 is
due to be permanent and has been subject of a full road safety audit. Essex County
Highways have considered this aspect of the proposals for over two years through
Pre -App and the application itself and have come to the conclusion that the
proposed T -junction together with measures to reduce the speed limit on
the A414 down to 40 miles per hour are caused with relevant highway policy and
legislation. Concerns have previously been raised regarding the capacity of
wastewater infrastructure in Northfield. Thames Water have a statutory
obligation to provide sufficient capacity for proposed development.
Nevertheless we have agreed to conditions which will restrict any
occupation on the site until such time as Thames Water have had the opportunity
to address the issue.
Epping Forest Council is under significant pressure to provide housing given the introduction
of grey belt policy, housing delivery shortfalls and special measures provisions from central
government.
As mentioned, this is an allocated site in the council's adopted local plan and the proposals
fully accord with the planning policy providing much needed housing including the provision
of 40 % affordable housing.
I therefore respectfully request that committee members support and approve this proposal
in line with officer's recommendation.
Thank you for your time. Thank you Mr. Alington. We'll try one more time with
Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:57:00
Ms. De Luca on Teams please. Hi there, I think you can hear me now. Thank you we
can. Sorry about that. Okay, good evening members. This is an allocated site to
the local plan and as such the parish council does not object in principle to
its development. However it is vital that how its development and design
does not cause future problems for
either Northfield Village or the future occupants. Given we have only three
minutes I will address only three issues. The first relates to the original
temporary access of the A414 which is now proposed to be permanent. By
By allowing this to be permanent, the committee would effectively be accepting the creation of a shortcut to access the wider master plan development site.
This access would be used as the main access point by those travelling east to west to access the whole master plan development, rather than using the proposed new roundabout, which is supposed to be the primary access to the whole site.
It would also be used as a shortcut when the A414 is blocked, creating a rat run via the new development,
creating congestion and having a negative impact on the future occupiers of the development site.
This is a future problem just waiting to happen and without appropriate mitigation, such as bus access only, you are creating a problem.
Secondly, relating to the now accepted significant impact on Junction 7 that all of these developments will have,
the officer has recommended that in order to avoid a delay in granting permission for this application,
the future mitigation strategy to address impacts on the strategic route network should be dealt with under delegated authority.
We disagree, believing it is so important to get this right. Any mitigation
strategy should come back to committee to allow appropriate scrutiny by those
familiar with the area. Third, following feedback from residents as part of the
neighbourhood plan process, the expansion of St. Andrews School to accommodate
growth was originally supported, however this was subject to there being a
dedicated drop -off pickup located north of the school and
contained within the southern part of the development. This proposal was
not supported by Essex County Council Highways nor EFDC and has not been
designed as part of the application. The local roads around the school suffered
with daily issues and arguments of drivers parking over residential
driveways causing daily friction and heated tension. As currently proposed,
this new development north of the school would undoubtedly suffer the same long -term issue,
an issue accepted by the Planning Officer on page 58 of the report.
Thank you Ms De Luca, we'll leave it there if that's okay with you.
Thank you.
Members, we have a recommendation to approve.
The matter is open for your comments.
Councillor McIver, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:00:48
First of all, I think it's worth noting,
so I was the ward member for Northwell from 2019 to 2023,
so I'm very familiar with the site.
Also used to live right next door to the site,
and I've had zero engagement with the developer here.
So I just think that should be a matter of record
for the committee.
And you know, if a local district councillor
is not considered a first point of call
when looking at community stakeholders,
then why one that was serving
for a significant period of time wasn't, I don't know.
So I just think the committee should be aware of that.
First of all, once again, it's another example
of North Wildenonger being battered by the local plan.
I accept the scheme is within the local plan, but how ill thought out?
Access via the A414 is ridiculous whether it's 20 miles an hour or 40 miles an hour.
Exceptionally busy road, so much congestion, especially at rush hour, now also at the weekends.
We're going to develop loads on the airfield, creating even more traffic. We have huge developments
north of this one.
We also have all of the developments around Ongo
which will all be squeezing onto this stretch of road.
So the access is a no -go for starters in my view.
Secondly, I think the matter about Thames Water,
whilst I accept they have some statutory obligations,
I think we need to read the room as to what we're doing
to these areas when we're at the scale of the developments
that we are proposing onto these areas
and on the infrastructure.
It is not a sustainable location
and it is certainly not a suitable location for Gypsy Traveller site.
Firstly, when you have a site like that, you need space, rule number one.
Far more suited to rural communities,
not on a squeezed -in to a new development like this next to a primary school.
We're also developing places like North Wild, unacceptably and at scale,
just like we are in Onga.
We are now restricting the growth and expansion of St Andrews Primary School,
which would be the obvious thing to do.
And when other large -scale schemes have been proposed
with additional educational facilities,
they've not been accepted.
So we find ourselves in a very silly position.
Why are we doing this when we know it doesn't work?
Well, there are plenty of fine examples around the district
where we've had ill -thought -out development
and 20 years later, we're paying the price.
In terms of the...
..what's just up the road,
I think it's worth mentioning that with the additional capacity that is coming from
Harlow when it comes to additional homes and properties, that is all added pressure onto
the A414 between people going from Harlow to Chelmsford, which is a regular route for
people.
But also, should we take a moment just to recognise what happens when the M25 is closed
and the M11 is closed, what that does to North Wield?
totally wholly unsuitable to have a junction on the 414 to this site.
And with regards to the design and design guide,
I don't feel we've seen enough respect to the character of Northworld with the scheme,
and I think that that is something that the people of Northworld deserve,
particularly bearing in mind its location,
its proximity to the three buildings that already have been mentioned.
And the last point I just want to make is just in relation to the proposed wider plan
for North Wild.
And I think that it's very easy to look at this scheme as the scheme as it is, but there
is a wider context in terms of the other schemes that are being proposed for North Wild, particularly
on the airfield, which it may look like from this application isn't that far.
This is right on top of the airfield, basically, and those schemes.
So I certainly won't be supporting this and I just want to say to members that
I appreciate that the council as mentioned by the applicants agent is in its situation. It's in with planning
We are not to sell out our soul or our residents and be pressured to accept applications
Just because they're in the local plan when they're wholly unsuitable as this one is. Thank you chairman. Thank you. Council Mccarvel
We're gonna start unpicking that so
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:05:05
Council Dabb would you want to have a feedback from Ms. D 'Aguil first?
Can I say something to ask please?
Thank you Chairman.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:05:14
Well first of all I wanted to commend Suki Dadwah's report which is very, very thorough.
And whilst I appreciate the concerns that Councillor McIver has raised, and I think
a lot of us have similar concerns about the A414, and I thought the very good point made
by Northfield Parish Council about this secondary access
point becoming a rat run and also avoiding
what was proposed as a roundabout for the main access
perhaps needs to be looked at again.
On the point about education, I think that the case officers,
and she can probably come back on this,
case officers report is quite clear that they have actually looked at that in
detail and there is the capacity to extend the school. We are all concerned
about Thames Water but she has got some mitigating conditions in there. What we
can do about Thames Water other than hope that they sort themselves out and
get a move on I'm not sure. But the design I fully appreciate that we've got
have the right design, we've got to have the right housing mix, preferably
masonettes not flats, the matting has got to be right, the parking has got to be
right, it's got to be in character and in context, but I understand these will all
be looked at at reserve matters and that is quite important that the North
design guide is incorporated in that.
But I'm sure that our case officer
will be able to explain a bit more about some of those points that have been raised.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Dabbar.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:07:17
Yes, Ms Dabbar, I think there are a few areas there from Councillor McIvor and also for
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:07:20
Councillor Dabbar to speak.
Let me know if I've missed anything.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:07:24
but so the, yes, the detailed design will be dealt with at the Reserve Matters application
stage. The design was, we had heavy input from the urban design team who steered the
development so that it, to ensure that it complied with the strategic master plan for
North Wield, which went out to public consultation and was endorsed by this council.
So it's not come out of the blue.
The local plan requires that 1 ,050 new homes be provided for North Wield.
This location has gone through a site selection process and has been considered suitable for
that provision. This scheme, alongside the larger history site, which is providing, has
allocated space for a school, a surgery, local centre, the SANG, and all the facilities that
will be within this scheme, and all the others coming forward, will provide a comprehensive,
sustainable location. The money towards bus transport will ensure that there's
improved bus services to improve sustainability. The whole purpose of
having an allocated site and having them master planned is to ensure that, as I
said early in the presentation, is to ensure that every house is within
in 150 metres of green space.
It should also be close to a bus stop.
We would also then be looking at travel plan requirements to ensure that the most sustainable
modes of transport are encouraged for future occupiers.
Also, furthermore, given that we don't have a five -year housing supply and we are under
special measures, to not approve this application would have serious ramifications for the Council
in terms of development in the Greenbelt.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:09:56
Thank you, Mr Abbot. Can I also draw your...
Councillor McIver also raised questions about the traveller numbers.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:10:06
Yes, so as stated in my report, that's the correct need for traveller accommodation.
When the site was allocated, the provision provided in there ensured that we would have
enough housing to meet the needs of travel accommodation at that time.
Since that time, that survey was carried out in 2017 for gypsy and travel accommodation.
As a result of the Lisa Smith judgement, where the definition of a traveller has been expanded,
the need for a travel accommodation has increased.
And therefore, we currently now only have a 0 .3 year supply.
So if we were of the position that we didn't approve the traveller accommodation,
it would increase the likelihood of unauthorised development in the green belt being allowed at appeal.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:11:05
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:11:08
It's also a low requirement, so we wouldn't have a reason to refuse it just because we don't like it being there.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:11:15
Thank you Mr Dabbar, I'm going to go to Councillor Amos because he was...
Thank you Chairman.
Cllr Clive Amos - 1:11:18
We're looking today at the outline planning consent and access.
There are a considerable number of section 106 conditions that have to be complied with
and the report says that if the legal agreement is not signed within six months then the Director
of planning can refuse this outline planning consent.
It would therefore seem to follow that until that's
received, we couldn't be considering
the detailed applications which will have
to come to us in due course.
Like other members here tonight, although I am not
local to that area, I'm fairly familiar with the area.
And the access to the A414, I think, is a problem.
It's a bad road, it has a very bad reputation, as we know.
And whilst I accept that this is part of the Local Plan,
and I certainly... That's the first condition,
is it part within the Local Plan?
Yes, it is.
I would be somewhat hesitant to give the go -ahead tonight
until that access has really been satisfied to everybody's, has been met to everybody's
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:12:45
satisfaction. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Amos. Councillor Brouwer. So the access was
Cllr Jamie Braha - 1:12:46
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:12:48
looked at by highways and highways made suggestions to ensure that it was safe. So it's a wide
It connects to the spine road already approved by this committee on April 8th and it's of the same quality.
So highways are satisfied that it's a safe, good quality road.
Thank you.
Councillor Brough, I'm just going to go to Mr Walker and Ms Apgarfer.
the
.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:13:18
I just wanted to bring
Legal Representative - 1:13:21
member's attention to par ag of testing and
44 GHz andoch of the
which states development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would
be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the
road network following mitigation would be severe, taking into account all reasonable
future scenarios.
So in terms of what's been talked about today, it would need to have a severe impact in order
to refuse or restrict development.
As the case officer has pointed out, Essex County Council as a statutory consultee has
not objected and is satisfied with the access so if it was to be refused on on
highway grounds there would need to be strong and compelling evidence at an
appeal
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:14:10
Cllr Jamie Braha - 1:14:11
council bra hi like very patient yeah my funders kind of instal them but for me
I was gonna say well I'm sympathetic to some of the comments been made here it's
quite straightforward to me here it's an allocated site we've got an outline
an application with all matters reserved apart from access and highways don't have an objection.
I don't think we have a leg to stand on.
Well, I get some of the points raised.
We can discuss this round and round, but that's the decision we've got to make tonight on
basis that highways don't have an issue.
This council has had issues with refusing applications like this and we want to get
out of special measures.
We don't want to stay in it.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor Brouwer.
I'll take Councillor Whiskey and then I'll go to McIver.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:14:54
My concern is about infrastructure.
Again, we look at all these developments, not only in this
master plan, but in other master plans.
It seems to me that the infrastructure, and we're
talking specifically about the 414 here, is the cumulative
effect needs to be considered.
And it's not just from Northwield, it's the cumulative
effect from developments going on in Onge.
And I think the public will expect that the roads will be addressed before any developments
are made.
And the whole of the system seems to fly in the face of that.
The developers will provide funding for these through the Section 106 agreements in a piecemeal
fashion and it's not the right way of dealing with it.
And what really bothers me, and to hear that Thames Water are not in a position to provide
adequate sewage services, it just shows the state of play in
this country.
But the point is that the infrastructure should be coming
first, and that's what we should be pushing.
And we should be thinking very carefully about these
applications in a piecemeal fashion.
We should be looking at the whole lot and the implications
of the cumulative effect.
Thank you, Councillor Whiskin.
Ms. Zadlar.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:16:10
So there's conditions to ensure that any development will only
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:16:13
the
infrastructure in place and the
section 106 agreement will also ensure
that development don't get occupied
until they pay the required contributions.
With regard to the access and the
cumulative impacts from other sites, the
applicant submitted a transport assessment which looked at all
the allocated sites and therefore they would have taken
all the impacts of allocated sites within and around that area. So there shouldn't be a problem.
Highways are satisfied that it would not cause cumulative impacts that would make the road
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:17:04
unusable. Thank you Mr Etowah. Council Wiskin. I think the committee meetings I sat on have
Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:17:08
little faith in Essex highways.
We have little assurance from them that they've actually ever
been to many of the sites where we've questioned
about highways access.
So I would put a serious question mark on it.
And I think the cumulative effect is so enormous that we
cannot ignore it.
And I'm always saying that this money is being put forward
through the Section 106 agreements.
It's going to fund for the 414 to be turned into a
three -lane highway?
I very much doubt.
But that's what's probably likely to be required going down the road with all the developments going on in Onger and Northwale and beyond
Thank You council, let's get officers. I've just one query I have is
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:17:49
On the previous applications that we've had in that location. I forget what the precise wording was from
Highways England was it wasn't a holding objection they worked it as well
just the consistency
Was it a holding objection? It was a holding objection I think at the time you
considered the site next door, the Vistri site, that and Latham Priory there was a
holding objection against those two applications. And that's now been lifted?
Legal Representative - 1:18:20
That's now been lifted on the Vistri site and I don't believe
National Highways have ever objected to this site. It seems odd as it's literally
next to it? I think it's to do with the scale so I think that the number of
homes compared to the other sites where they've submitted holding
up, Chair.
Councillor McIver.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:18:41
First of all, I do believe, as paragraph 116 states, I do believe we absolutely have exceptional
circumstances with the A414.
It's an Essex Police high -risk route, and the recent changes that they've had to make to
the road prove that, not least to mention the flowers littered almost every corner you
go to, particularly by junctions, because there is a road that is unsuitable for the
of vehicle movements that go onto that road.
And so I think we absolutely have a case for that
on terms of power off 116.
In terms of Section 106 is I'm just of no faith
that that is actually a material consideration
for the committee, because unfortunately we know
a lot of that money doesn't actually end up being spent.
And when it does, it's a small drop in the ocean
compared to what really needs to be done.
I do have two questions.
My first question is, I'd like to establish
what the rationale is.
This is a question for the officers.
I'd like to understand what the rationale is behind having the Gypsy Traveller sites
dumped within the new development and also what considerations have been done to the
type of site that will be.
Will it be frequently moving?
Will it be semi -permanently moving?
I think there's detail there.
Also impacts the state of the highway.
Are they allowed to have commercial activity there?
And that has an impact on the access.
And the second query I have, and I think this is a very pertinent point, is that yes, I
appreciate we're in special measures, yes, I appreciate it's in the local plan, but what
is the point in having a planning committee of elected councillors if we're not here to
raise the concerns that, A, our residents have, but B, we have as elected members.
We're not here in this chamber to just tick through applications in the local plan just
because we're in special measures.
Yes, we're in special measures.
Yes, it's in the local plan.
But that's not acceptable to put people's lives at risk on a road
which is notoriously dangerous and has had significant amounts
of road fatalities because of road junctions on the A414.
So 116, we definitely have a case.
I'd be very prepared to support that.
But my question is, what is the rationale behind dumping
gypsy traveller sites within a new development?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:20:54
Just one point of order, maybe just to moderate the tone of dumping, placing I think maybe
better.
I'll rephrase my question.
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:21:03
What is the rationale behind placing gypsy traveller sites within a scheme?
Ms. Dadwell.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:21:12
So we need to house all types of housing.
Just as we've gone through a site selection process with standard market housing, we've
also done the same for Gypsy Traveller accommodation.
this site was put through that selection process and it's on the evidence base for the local
plan. That information was published and as part of the local plan, the master plan was
consulted on and the, if I just get the correct title. Yeah and it was also improved by the
inspector. I just get the GTAA document. What you are looking at chair, what I am
keen to establish is in terms of the consultation as mentioned, were the people of Northfield
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:22:14
consulted on having a gypsy traveller site within this scheme or were they consulted
on it just being a scheme of residential. So the whole, the application was consulted,
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:22:23
all surrounding neighbours were consulted with the scheme, so they would have seen the whole
scope of the scheme. Likewise the Northfield master plan would have, it includes the Gypsy
traveller site and that was consulted on and so and it was endorsed by members. So both the local
plan was agreed by members, also endorsed by the planning
inspector.
The master plan included gypsy and traveller sites
in that location, which that location was chosen
because it was considered suitable going through the site
selection process and was considered
sustainable for gypsy traveller accommodation.
So we've done the consultation.
From a planning policy point of view,
there's no reason to not allow it.
What was the suitability of this site
for gypsy traveller accommodation as opposed to other sites?
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:23:23
So what comes forward, is it in a sustainable location?
Is it likely to flood?
I can bring up the selection criteria.
Would you build me?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:23:47
I was going to move on to Councillor Brouwer while Ms. Dabab was looking for.
Cllr Jamie Braha - 1:23:52
So it was just one point which we've got to raise which the parish mentioned, I think
Councillor Dababneh mentioned, whether if this is approved and when they are going through
detailed design, can we look at avoiding the rat run through the site?
Because I do think that is important.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:24:10
That would be determined by officers, so it would not necessarily come back to us.
We can note it on our recommendation as part of this.
Can we do that? Do you know the legal team?
Whether any of the reserve matter items can come back to committee.
I suppose they can if they come here.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:24:34
If they are of special importance, which is agreed by the Chairman and the Director of
Planning, at this stage the details have not been formalised, but I think the special scope
of individual cases, I think there could be scope, especially as the decision was made
prior to the legislation coming into force.
But obviously I'm not a legal expert,
so I'll just cheque whether that is the case.
Yeah, thanks.
I'll just share whilst I was looking
for the site selection,
bring it up.
This is the report that looks at all sites and considers whether they are suitable or
not for gypsy and traveller accommodation.
green, and this site west of Tyler's Green was considered suitable.
and the criteria on which it was based.
Does it say that, Suki?
It said potentially available, did it not?
Yeah, so at that stage it was, so obviously that was stage.
Let's see what stage it was.
I don't think it said...
That was result of stage two and then there was a stage three.
I don't think that said anything apart from just its status.
Yes, so it would look at site entirely located outside of settlement buffer.
I think the answer to that was no.
Site entirely constrained by FAD risk.
And the answer was no.
So these are the questions that were asked.
This document, EB805V.
So this is one of the stages.
It went through several, a number of stages.
Irrespective this, it went through the stages of being considered and was as a result of
the methodology was considered suitable for gypsy and traveller accommodation by officers.
Officers then produced the local plan and included these sites which were then went
through a consultation process which were then agreed by the cabinet and endorsed by
the cabinet and then the planning inspector agreed them.
So there's no way in which we can come back and say this site is not suitable because
we've gone through the process, we've gone through the many consultations to demonstrate
that the site is suitable.
Thank you, Ms. Devoire. Mr. Walker, do you want to?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:27:50
Just to follow up on that point as well, the committee has done a statutory duty pursuant
Legal Representative - 1:27:53
to section 38 .6 of the Planning and Compulsive Purchase Act to determine applications in
accordance with its development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Just on the point regarding referral to committees,
I believe under the new rules and legislation
due to come into effect, there will be a process
where it could be potentially referred back
to committee subject to certain criteria being met.
Councillor Dabbitt.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:28:21
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:28:24
Following on from Councillor Braha's suggestion,
would we be able to approve in principle
with the proviso that the access that was originally going to be a temporary access
which is near to the Talbot roundabout is looked at again in reserve matters to prevent
a rat run through the site and avoiding the main access which has got to have a roundabout
or words to that effect, would that, is that something that is feasible please?
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:29:07
I think we can put it as a condition that,
So, if we put in a condition to demonstrate that it will not create a RAP 1 method to
prevent a RAP 1, would that be the...
Mr Walker.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:29:35
Legal Representative - 1:29:37
Can I just come in on that point, just that the application is in outline with all matters
reserved except for access so this access is getting approved in detail.
I do have, I mean the condition was worded so that...
Councillor Brouwer, come in.
Cllr Jamie Braha - 1:29:54
It's not the access which we're contributing, it's obviously the access but then the internal
layout and obviously we don't want that to be missed.
We could feed it into the lake, it could be determined in the...
and gazing over the soil.
So I just get the wording of,
so condition one is prior to the commencement
of development subject to reserve matters,
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:30:15
details of the reserve matters set out to the standard.
And it's point one is access,
excluding the access shown on drawing F23106 of 04.
So that is the access coming into the site
as highways have approved,
but then internally, that's still,
we've still got power to make changes
to the internal layout if necessary.
Councillor Bauha, and then I'll come to.
Yeah, so that's what we just want to make sure
you've got control over.
Cllr Jamie Braha - 1:30:51
Yeah, so I mean, I think we can cover it by condition A
in terms of, although the main access
access is what has been approved, but the internal roads behind that access we can make
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:31:10
changes to.
Condition 1.
Mr Walker.
Sorry.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:31:20
I am glad you are here today.
Before agreeing to that condition, I want to make sure members are aware of paragraph
Legal Representative - 1:31:31
of the MPPF which states planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only in place
where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable,
precise and reasonable in all other respects.
What my only point I'd make on top of that is just whether members are satisfied they've
heard enough evidence before them tonight to impose a condition to meet those tests.
I just wanted to make the point, I think there's two separate issues here when it comes to
the road.
The concern I have that I think is relevant to this, what we're discussing this evening
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:32:06
is access to the A414.
To me that's a complete no go and we should be doing all we can to object to that.
The rat run that could come subsequently is a secondary problem and I completely agree
with parish council.
I can see how it will happen.
It kind of happens already if you look at other parts of Northwood like Queens Road
school Green Lane, I can see the difference is that's people trying to get away from the
higher road, which is rarely congested as opposed to the A414, which is regularly congested.
So there is definitely a case that the parish council making, but for this evening, my concern
is the access onto the A414 as per paragraph 116, as mentioned by our legal support officers,
I am convinced that we have a case on the danger of the A414, despite what Essex highways
have recommended.
I've sat on planning, I don't know how many years,
I've never known Essex Highways say they don't like access,
even when it's clearly dangerous,
and we've been successful when we've actually challenged
them in the past, and I believe that there is a very strong
case and compelling case here.
The speed limit will make zero difference
to the safety concerns that we're raising.
I also believe there's an additional safety risk
if there is a Gypsy Traveller site also on this site,
that could incur more frequent vehicle movements
than you would ordinarily have on a residential development without gypsy traveller movement.
So I do believe that there is a case for that and I would like the committee to make that
its priority over the secondary concern which is the wrap run.
We can maybe alleviate the wrap run issue if we improve access to the site altogether.
Since it's the outline application with the access being the only unreserved issue, we
can't change the main access into the site.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:33:48
We would have to turn it down on that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Councillor Dada, let me come in.
Thank you.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:34:00
While having read all the details and looked at them,
I, and also having had experience dealing with highways,
I agree that we have got far more on the A414
than we would like.
and also that it is going to affect ONGA.
I think having a roundabout there is a very sensible idea and I can't see from all the
information we have been provided with that we have got a strong case to actually refuse
the access.
I think if we have the reserve matters we can look at the stopping of being a rat run.
But I also, on the traveler's side, the five pitches, which is five static caravans
and five touring caravans on, I think it's a third of a hectare?
Yeah, that's right.
If you were housing there, you'd have a lot more movement.
There's quite a generous space for them.
And I think that we don't know at this stage what it would be.
and I think it would be, we have no evidence to actually say that that would make a significant
difference. So I will not be voting against this proposal.
Thank you.
Chegg, can I just correct a point I made earlier as well? Just cheque the regulations in terms
of referring the reserve matters. Once the National Scheme of Delegation takes effect,
Legal Representative - 1:35:26
it would not constitute a large site which is a site of 500 or more homes. So if under
that it would be dealt with at officer level.
Thank you, Mr Walker.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:35:39
One question I did have, which may even be a question for the
applicant's agent, is actually how the travelling element of
the site would work once the scheme was built out.
Would they seek to have some sort of management arrangement
with it?
Would it be sold off?
How would they envision it working?
I presume there's no objection to me asking the applicant just
bit of clarification on that point. Thank you chair I'll try to stick to just this
one point. We represent the landowner we made an outline application the
intention if and when permission is granted we will then market the site to
a house builder who will then do the reserve matters and deal with how the
site is disposed of so I can't answer that question with any real certainty
what I envisage will happen is that the the land will probably be handed over to
the relevant authorities for them to then much in the same way I guess
affordable housing is it would be made available should we say to the traveller
community for them to then take up. Thank you. I've got a suggestion that perhaps
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:36:50
the legal team can actually clarify can we request in reserve matters that they
we look at having a condition on the travellers site about commercial activity or something
like that, a covenant or something on the land.
I think in terms of the use of the site which is being granted is for the C3, so for residential
Legal Representative - 1:37:15
uses, so I don't see why a condition to the effect that the primary use has to be C3 wouldn't
the legal tests and unless I'm open to officers comments as well. And if that's
the case can that be noted?
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:37:35
You run into an awkward situation don't you with the residential housing scheme
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:37:47
someone's parked their van outside their house is it? I think it is for clarity
the sort of belt and braces if we did have a condition
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:37:52
which just said that residential properties
and travellers properties shall not be used
for commercial purposes that will address that.
So it.
Yeah, I think it would have to be as it would be
for any home, it would have to be a C3 use,
would have to be the primary use.
Legal Representative - 1:38:12
So you could have ancillary.
Yeah, yeah.
Some sort of ancillary thing that I suppose
you wanna just keep it as tight as possible.
Councillor McOwen.
I'm going to try and sort of button things down.
Yeah, I appreciate.
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:38:22
I think just to help officers, what I'm envisioning, I think that's what Councillor
Dadd is envisioning, is if a resident on the GYPS traveller site was to have a business
perhaps with six vehicles to make it that their business couldn't be based there and
therefore there couldn't be commercial activity on the site, which is I know is something
that happens on sites like this.
So I think it's trying to mitigate this residential area,
having the enforcement power to make sure
that there is no way a commercial site like that
could last because we'd quickly be able to say
this is the condition that said that was unacceptable.
That's certainly how I envisage it.
Can I come back on that?
A pitch is not only a static caravan
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:39:02
and a travelling caravan, but also two vehicles.
So that would be for 10 vehicles, not your six.
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:39:16
Sorry, just to clarify, I'm assuming one of those residents might have six vehicles if their business is based there, that's what I'm suggesting.
And also there's nothing to say that in a spot where a static caravan would be, that wouldn't be replaced with another vehicle which could be commercial use.
So I think it's eliminating the commerciality from it.
It's quite clear what a traveller's site is and what pitch is.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:39:32
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:39:37
It might be stretching it, but the only other thing I was thinking of, maybe it would be
stretching the definition to include paraphernalia associated with business, but I don't know
if that would be too much.
We could add it, yeah.
Yeah, you don't want skip.
Legal Representative - 1:39:47
You don't want a permanent skip, for example.
Yeah, I think it potentially is stretching it beyond.
I mean, there's an argument to say we don't need a condition here because the use will
be C3.
So if if the primary use is not C3 then there would be the option potentially for the council to take enforcement action
If it felt that the land was the primary use was another function
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:40:12
So based based on the how it is at the moment if a load of
Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:40:18
Fairground rides for parts on the site would that be acceptable or not based on what's currently on on the site?
That's what I'm trying to establish
So say you've got resident there that has a commercial business and they have three or four fairground rides
which is a common thing with certain communities,
would there be a scenario where that is allowed or not
based on what we've got in front of us?
When I looked at what a pitch represents,
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:40:41
it does not represent the travel at the H** and circus.
Just for avoidance of doubt,
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:40:48
I think we can include a condition
just so that it doesn't get to the point
where it's installed there for a short space of time
and they're saying we're just holding it here.
If there's a condition saying there shall be no paraphernalia
or commercial cars on the site,
that just eliminates it and it's easier to enforce.
I take your point, Councillor McGregor.
Members, I think we have had quite a substantial discussion
on this.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:41:22
I won't read the entire proposal out,
but we have a recommendation to approve it this evening.
Please, with those amendments which have been put forwards.
Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:41:36
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:41:37
So it's a condition to control no commercial activity
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:41:39
and no paraphernalia for all residential uses.
But also not the other site, the other access
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:41:48
and the four on four, about the red one.
So that would be internal roads.
Sukhi Dhadwar - 1:41:55
So that would be at the, yeah, that'd be at the reserve matters stage.
But that is noted.
Should we put that as an informative?
I think that would be useful to have as an informative.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:42:09
With that in mind, members, please can I have a show of hands in favour of
the application as proposed with those recommendations?
Forward, Chair.
All those against?
Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:42:29
and abstentions one chair so therefore that item is approved

10 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

members we then move on to item 10 which is any other business please if we have
Thank you very much everybody.
Cllr Clive Amos
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Clive Amos
Cllr Richard Bassett
District councillor for Roydon and Lower Nazeing ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Richard Bassett
Cllr Jamie Braha
District councillor for Grange Hill ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Jamie Braha
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 Will Kauffman
District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
District councillor for Ongar ward
Reform UK
View profile Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Geoff Shaw
District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward
Reform UK
View profile Cllr Geoff Shaw
Cllr Graham Wiskin
District councillor for Loughton St John's ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Graham Wiskin