Planning Committee A - Wednesday 22 July 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee A
Wednesday, 22nd July 2026 at 7:00pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Steven Heather

1 Webcasting Introduction

Share this agenda point

2 ADVICE TO PUBLIC AND SPEAKERS ATTENDING THE COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

Share this agenda point

Advice to Public and Speakers at Council Planning Committees (Jan 2026) FINAL

3 Apologies for absence

Share this agenda point

Laura Kirman
Cllr Steven Heather

4 Substitute Members

Share this agenda point

5 Declarations of interest

Share this agenda point

6 Minutes

Share this agenda point

7 EPF/2004/25 - 6 Lilac House, London Road, Stanford Rivers, Ongar, CM5 9PH

Share this agenda point

EPF/2004/25 - 6 Lilac House, London Road, Stanford Rivers, Ongar, CM5 9PH

Sukhi Dhadwar
Yee Cheung
Nathaniel Raimi
Cllr Steven Heather
Public Speaker
Public Speaker
Cllr Steven Heather
Denise Bastick
Cllr Richard Bassett
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Steven Heather

8 EPF/0181/26 - Green Acres, Ivy Chimneys, Epping, CM16 4EL

Share this agenda point

Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Steven Heather
Public Speaker
Cllr Steven Heather
Public Speaker
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Cllr Steven Heather
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Mandy George
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Richard Bassett
Cllr Steven Heather
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Richard Bassett
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Tom Bromwich
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Ken Williamson
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Tom Bromwich
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Tom Bromwich
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Steven Heather
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Barbara Cohen
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Steven Heather
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Steven Heather
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Steven Heather
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Mandy George
James Rogers
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Karen McIvor
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Will Kauffman
James Rogers
Cllr Steven Heather
Nicola Sayers
Cllr Steven Heather
James Rogers
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Tom Bromwich
Cllr Steven Heather
Laura Kirman
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Barbara Cohen
Cllr Steven Heather
James Rogers
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Richard Bassett
Cllr Will Kauffman

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

Share this agenda point

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

Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Will Kauffman
Yee Cheung
Cllr Will Kauffman
Public Speaker
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Steven Heather
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Will Kauffman
Yee Cheung
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Karen McIvor
Yee Cheung
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Yee Cheung
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Yee Cheung
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Mandy George
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Mandy George
Cllr Will Kauffman
Public Speaker
James Rogers
Cllr Will Kauffman
Yee Cheung
Cllr Will Kauffman
Public Speaker
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Karen McIvor
James Rogers
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Barbara Cohen
Cllr Will Kauffman
James Rogers
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Will Kauffman
James Rogers
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Mandy George
Cllr Will Kauffman
James Rogers
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Will Kauffman

10 Any other business

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

1 Webcasting Introduction

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:00:00

Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that this meeting will be filmed live or recorded

and uploaded to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing.

Therefore by participating in this meeting you are consenting to being filmed and to

the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

If any public speakers on MS Teams do not wish to have their image captured, they should

ensure that their video setting throughout the meeting is turned off and set to audio

only.

members and public speakers are reminded to turn on the microphones before

speaking and turn them off when they have finished. Thank you. My name's

Councillor Stephen Heather I'm tonight's chairman and to my right is my vice

chairman Councillor Will Kaufman to his right from democratic services is Laura

Coleman and to the far right is the webcaster Lou Baker. To my left we have

from the planning department, James Rogers, Yi Chung,

and Nathaniel Ramey.

Near enough?

Thank you.

Members of public that do plan to speak tonight,

2 ADVICE TO PUBLIC AND SPEAKERS ATTENDING THE COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

you should have been briefed by democratic services.

And again, you have three minutes,

turn your microphone on when you start

and turn it on when you're finished.

And also a reminder that ward members on this committee

cannot vote on issues in their ward.

So on the last item, I will move away from the chair

and my vice chair will take the chair.

Apologies for absence, please.

3 Apologies for absence

Laura Kirman - 0:01:34

We've received apologies for absence from Councillor Sharif

who has been substituted by Councillor George.

Thank you.

So substitute members, we've already covered that.

Thank you.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:01:44

Declarations of interest members.

4 Substitute Members

5 Declarations of interest

Thank you.

The minutes of the last meeting,

6 Minutes

which held on the 10th of June are to follow.

So we will not be agreeing those at this meeting.

Right, the first item on our agenda then

7 EPF/2004/25 - 6 Lilac House, London Road, Stanford Rivers, Ongar, CM5 9PH

is agenda item seven, which is EPF stroke 2004 stroke 25,

six Lilac house, London road, Stanford river Zonga,

CM five nine pH on pages five to 12 of your agenda.

And Nathaniel, you'll be taken through this.

Thank you.

Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:02:22

Yee Cheung - 0:02:26

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, so item 7, application number EPF 2004 slash 25 relates to the proposed erection

Nathaniel Raimi - 0:02:44

of a dwelling at Lilac House 6 London Road.

The application is before the committee today because the officers recommended for approval

and the parish council have objected and intend to speak this evening.

So on this slide it's just really, you know, the application site is outlined in red, right

next to the donor dwelling which is outlined in blue.

I think some of the background and the context of this application may be helpful.

So an application, a similar application was refused by the council delegated decision

in 2024.

The application was subsequently appealed.

There were originally three reasons for refusal which I have set out my report.

used in this to

corresponds with the

agreed agreement.

As is for theulhu

treatment for Member, these

by the division, they look at

where or where the agreed

legal agreement, but the appeal was not

the correct mechanism to secure that legal agreement.

I'm sure you guys are familiar with the different exceptions in

the green belt.

This one in particular is being assessed against the principle

exception

is development in previously developed land. Previously developed land as set out in the

MPPF, there are a variety of different types of sites, if you will, that fall within that

definition in this instance is because it's a residential garden within a non -built up

area. The non -built up area characteristic is principally driven here by the fact it's

in a rural green belt location.

Also in addition to that, since the appeal,

the council is unable to demonstrate

a five year housing land supply.

The site is found to accord with grey belt policies

in the MPPF.

This is just a simple site plan,

shows location of the property.

So I should have put my pointer on.

So, yeah, the it's not showing, apologies, but yes, towards the northeast is the proposal.

Parking spaces for the donor sites, parking spaces for the proposed dwelling as well and

some permeable paving.

Again, this is just a slide showing site plan, the appearance and how it sits on the street

So for the reasons set out above and in the context of the planning history and the planning

inspector accepting both the character and the principle of development, I'll be recommending

it for, or I've recommended it for approval subject to a Section 106 agreement.

Thank you.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:06:11

Thank you. We do have public speakers on this application and I very, very missily failed

to mention that joining us online is our legal representative, Nicholas Sayers. So our first

public speaker is Stamford Rivers Parish Council, Adrianna Jones via Teams. Are you there?

I'm here.

Thank you. You have three minutes as usual. Thank you.

Okay thank you very much Chair. Good evening members.

Public Speaker - 0:06:35

The Parish Council had two objections to this application.

The first was relating to the statement

that this is self -build dwelling.

The Planning Officer stated that there is no requirement

for applications of self -build development

to evidence their eligibility.

However District Council's own policy in the local plan

sets out onto policy H1 that proposals for self -build

house building will be supported where the location

is appropriate in terms of access to facilities

services and public transport.

which Stanford Rivers is not.

It can be dem —

and also sorry it can be demonstrated

that the development is designed and managed

to provide the most appropriate types

of and levels of support to the proposed

occupier and adequately caters for the needs

of the support support staff.

As such the self -filled element should not really just

be dismissed as it's EFDC's own policy

which creates the requirement for the evidence.

But secondly and most importantly the major

concern here is one of parking and safety.

It's noted that Essex County Council

highways have not objected.

Two parking spaces are provided for each home.

However within the 2024 parking standards

Stanford Rivers is classed as a very low in fact

the lowest connectivity area with no bus service

no public transport and no safe pavement to walk to Onga.

Thus residents rely on cars.

The planning officer sets out there is sufficient

and an allocated visitor's parking.

However 6 Lilac House the donor property

is a four bedroom property required in the parking

standards to have three car parking spaces

plus 0 .25 visitor spaces.

The new property is required to have two spaces plus 0 .25

visitor spaces.

Thus at a minimum five and a half car parking

spaces are needed but only four are proposed.

Essex County Council has requested alterations

to ensure that there was sufficient space

for turning area to allow vehicles to enter and exit

the site without obstruction to through traffic meaning

forwards onto the A113, recognised as being one of the most dangerous roads in Essex.

So we now ask you as a committee to take a closer look. We also ask you not to be fearful of going

against Essex County Council's highway position, but to look at the actual practicalities of the

site alongside the Essex County Council adopted parking standards. Firstly, there is clearly

insufficient parking provision for this low connectivity area. Secondly, as presented,

What happens to that turn in space there is when there is a visitor park there?

Even worse, what happens when there are two visitors parking there?

This would mean that in order for the neighbouring residents to exit the property,

both visitor vehicles will need to reverse out onto the A113,

wait for the neighbouring resident to leave the property and then drive back in.

This is not safe.

But by way of a remedy, there may well be sufficient space on the site

for the plans to be altered to allow for an additional two parking spaces.

one parking plus a communal visitor space. It's possible the plans could be

amended to accommodate this to ensure that the proposals do not represent a

highway safety issue but as proposed this is an accident waiting to happen.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We have another public speaker on this and that's Lewis Halliday who is

agent in person.

Good evening, can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Is that alright?

Okay, thank you.

Good evening.

Public Speaker - 0:09:54

I've been asked to address this committee on behalf of the applicant, who is a long -standing

resident of Stamford Rizard.

We hope that you take comfort in your Office of Recommendation for approval and support

this application.

All parties are in agreement that the proposal will represent an appropriate form of development

in the Green Belt, and it is now also accompanied by a signed and dated legal agreement which

to the necessary mitigation in terms of Epping for a special area of conservation, which

is the one reason why the previous bill was dismissed.

In relation to the parking concerns raised by the parish council, we would like to take

the opportunity to highlight a few different things.

The existing three bedroom residential dwelling, which is known as Lilac House, will be provided

with two parking spaces which is compliant with the standards.

The proposed two bedroom dwelling is provided with two parking spaces as well and obviously

there is in our view sufficient space within the site to provide some unallocated visitor

parking for both properties and therefore it's our view that the proposed development

will be acceptable from a highway perspective point of view, certainly with the highways

authority itself having not objected.

We appreciate that obviously concerns have been raised regarding the self -built nature

of the proposal as well.

It is our view that the proposal and the council's view as well that it would meet such a definition.

On the application form we signed and dated that the proposal would be a self -built proposal.

The applicant themselves have been primarily involved in the design of the dwelling, which

will become their main residence upon completion.

If members are minded, we would be agreeable for the self -built nature to be secured by

condition, if that's something they're going to take reassurance with.

We appreciate they've also raised concerns just now regarding the locational sustainability,

but again, that's not been a matter that's previously been contended, and under the previous

appeal, minus that one technicality, no other concerns have ever been raised by other relevant

parties.

So in conclusion, we urge you to support your office's recommendation and grant planning

commission accordingly.

Thank you.

Members.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:12:14

Councillor Besser.

Thank you, I saw you looking at me.

Denise Bastick - 0:12:23

I do know that Bitter Road is a bit high speed and prevalent.

Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:12:29

I think there is a speed limit on it, but as always everyone ignores the speed limit

And there has been a few accidents

Consequently in those trouble with no pathway to walk on

however that's

Being said I see there has been no objection from highways so that puts us a bit of a loss

Now, I do like the idea of making possibly an extra parking space on the site somehow.

Can be a visitor space or whatever.

It will make life a little bit easier there so vehicles can exit going forwards.

Also looking at the... it does look a little bit like an infill on that road, but I bow

to knowledge whether you want to call it an infill or not.

But to be honest, I think we have seen Whitehall's refused before.

Those were turned over, two of them, but the section 106 was the main issue and that is

now dealt with.

So I can't see too many problems at this time.

Thank you.

Any further?

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:13:43

That being the case, then the officer's recommendation is to approve the conditions subject to the

section 106 legal agreement.

All those in favour, please show.

Five chairman.

All those against.

Three chairman.

Abstentions?

No.

Thank you, therefore that application is approved,

subject to the 106 agreement.

8 EPF/0181/26 - Green Acres, Ivy Chimneys, Epping, CM16 4EL

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:14:09

All right members, agenda item 8 is EPF stroke 0181 stroke 26 Greenacres IV chimneys Epping

CM 16 4EL on pages 13 to 33 of your agenda and Kelly Sweeney is joining us online to

cycles through this I believe. Yes thank you chair, good evening members. Agenda item 8

relates to the proposed construction of ten new homes which form part of an

allocated site and endorsed master plan. Before I start the presentation just a

slight amendment on the committee report and it says that six objections have

been received from residents and it should be seven objections and but the

issues raised are reported appropriately in the report. Just moving on to the site. The site is

located to the south of Ivy Chimneys Road to the south of Epping and measures approximately 0 .81

hectares. Land to the east comprises existing residential development open fields adjacent to

M25 motorway which sits directly to the south of the site. Land to the west is also open

and undeveloped with some development along Ivy Chimneys Road. So just along here this

is the M25, here we have Ivy Chimneys Road and you can see that on each side of the site

we have some residential. As stated at the beginning of the presentation, the site forms

part of a much wider site allocation within the council's adopted local plan.

As part of the site's allocation, the South Epping Strategic Master Plan and associated design codes

have been formally endorsed by the council. The allocation is for residential or mixed -use

development with a minimum requirement to provide 450 homes across the entire master plan site.

There are a number of other site -specific requirements which require the delivery of

primary school, enhancement of walking and cycling facilities and Daesang. You will see from this

plan that the site allocation is split to reflect the fact that there are four separate developers

who have acquired land within the site allocation. Here we have Bellway Homes and then a big portion

of the the allocation is acquired by Barwood Land. To the north of the site you've got Mount Street

developments and the subject site is highlighted in red. It should be noted that the that Mount

Street developments have already submitted a nine unit scheme which has already been granted

planning permission and we've recently received a planning application for the borrowed home sites

which is an outline to provide 270 homes. So here we have the strategic master plan framework which

has been endorsed by the council. The areas in purple are residential, the

Kelly Sweeney - 0:17:22

area the yellow area is the site to allocate for the school and the green

areas are open spaces and the sang. I won't go through each of the photographs

individually but you can see that the site is mainly open undeveloped fields

with existing residential in close proximity to the site. Moving on to the

proposed development. The development is for tenured dwellings, includes a dedicated new

access from Ivey Chimneys Road and a noise attenuation bund to the south next to the

M25 motorway. So again we have the access from Ivey Chimneys Road at the north of the

site and then the noise bund is this area of land to the south and you've got the M25

here.

I'll just briefly run through the housing types. There are five different housing types proposed

with a range of numbers of bedrooms. Members will note that they're generously proportioned

with adequate access to light and outlook and all of the houses have access to large private

rear gardens.

So here we have some visuals of the elevations and

indicative plans of how the development might look.

You will note the varying design of the houses, which

are considered to be architecturally interesting,

avoiding generic or pastiche appearance.

So here we have an indicative proposed view from

within the development and a bit more detail

of what the houses may look like when once built. And this last visual shows the entrance

view into the site from Ivy Chimneys Road. In conclusion as per the committee report

officers considered that the development would be in accordance with the site allocation

and endorsed master plan. The overall layout and elevational treatment is of a high standard

of design and there would be no conflict with the council's local plan policies with respect

to the delivery of affordable housing, traffic and high -risk impacts, residential amenity

or the FSAC. As such, approval of the application is recommended. Thank you.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:19:44

Thank you. We have a public speaker on this application. That's David Rogers in person.

We're going to say you have three minutes.

Public Speaker - 0:19:52

I've lived in Winton, Ivey, Chinmills Road for over 30 years. It's impossible to realistically

comment on all the issues relating to this application in three minutes but I

would recommend that you read my objection letter to the council dated

25th of February 2026. I'm speaking here tonight to reinforce what I believe is the

uncoordinated approach by the planners in respect of the SEMP, a view I believe

which is supported by the Epping Forest Heritage Trust and Epping Town Council

and the failure to secure the objectives of the local plan with regard to 40 %

affordable housing position as required by the Planning Inspectorate. When the

design code was being considered the initial reports noted phasing this was

removed in the approach version of the design. I do not believe that we are

seeing coordinated plan to deliver the 450 houses the plan is not delivering

the objectives and requirements of the design code. My concern is that the

council having already removed the green belt in this area which ironically they

say is important to them when the special measures were introduced are

now going to allow a random site of 10 houses to be consented. The site does not

sit well with the design code in isolation as it clearly forms the

western boundary of the Barwood development, including key feature properties which have

been removed.

Albeit separate sites, and as the Barwood development has no real timeline in delivery,

this development will leave an isolated layout of houses that does not fit the character

of the area.

Even if the Barwood outline is successful, there is no timeline for its delivery, considering

the current economic climate which is seeing developers stalling due to financial constraints,

which means the whole plan becomes very fractured.

These two sites must be considered together, not least because of their double -entrenched access onto Iver chimneys road.

The Green Acre site seeks to deliver 10 houses at a price point beyond the younger people of Epping seeking their first home,

which if I recall correctly was a requirement made by Councillor Williamson when the cabinet endorsed the design code.

A viability assessment was included in the application that clearly demonstrates that the site is unviable.

No one will build 10 houses at a loss and I think it's fair to say the figures in the

viability are conservative in relation to actual cost as the cost of the Corporation

of London ransom strip and the cost to remove restrictive covenant are not considered.

Viability assessments are a tool used by developers to try and avoid paying contributions toward

affordable housing and section 106 payments.

It is noted that the section 106 contributions are secured in the report but the report also

states that any required amendments to the 106 should be delegated.

This must not be allowed.

Contributions should only be dealt with through the committee.

The acceptance here of no affordable housing contribution is a concern relating to how

the larger parcels will be considered.

No developer will build a development at a loss, therefore these properties or the site

with a consent will only be brought forward or sold when there is a realistic opportunity

of property.

There should be a mechanism introduced to ensure that if there is a profit, the Council

is able to secure an affordable contribution as required by the local plan.

The impact on ivy chimneys during development would be immense.

It could go on for years, severely affecting residents and causing mayhem.

Restrictions to the site traffic would need to be in place in the busy road.

Our property, which is adjacent to the development and Greenacres, was never considered in the

report.

No. 8 Meadowview was, but it's down for demolition in the Barwood outline, so it's irrelevant.

I feel that this should be refused or at least deferred and reconsidered alongside the Barwood

an application when that's heard. Thank you sir. Sorry, went over a bit. Thank you.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:23:11

We have another speaker which is Matthew Wood, the agent. Good evening. As you

Public Speaker - 0:23:19

will have read, the officer's committee report confirms that the proposed

development for ten new family homes and associated development forms part of the

self -eping master plan and would accord with the principles of the master plan

and design code.

Officers have also concluded that the proposals

would be acceptable in all other planning related respects,

including those in relation to character, appearance,

amenity, highways, parking, trees, landscaping, and ecology.

The proposed development has been the subject

of detailed pre -application discussions with officers

and the council's urban design consultant

prior to the submission of the planning application

to ensure full compliance with the Master Plan and design code.

This has resulted in a high quality and compatible proposal

for 10 new family homes being realised,

which would complement the character and appearance of the local area

and the wider Master Plan area once this is developed.

In addition, and in line with the approved Master Plan,

pedestrian and cycle routes would be provided through the site,

creating a sustainable transport link to Iver chimneys road.

As reaffirmed within the Committee Report, the proposed development remains acceptable

in all other planning -related regards in line with the requirements of the adopted local

plan.

This planning application has also been advertised accordingly, with no outstanding technical

objections.

Although some local objections have been received, these have been addressed by officers within

the Committee Report.

Officers conclude that the proposed development comprises a sustainable form of development

within the meaning of the adopted plan and the MPPF, which are conclusions that we strongly

agree with.

Notwithstanding this, the MPPF's tilted balance is also fully engaged and it is further considered

that there are no adverse impacts associated with these proposals which would significantly

and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the MPPF taken as a whole.

In conclusion, the proposed development comprised a sustainable form of development overall

within the meaning of the local plan, the self -epic master plan, design code and the

Therefore, we urge the members to support these high quality proposals and grant planning

permission accordingly.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Ward Councillors, Councillor Whitehouse?

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:25:40

Okay, thanks, Chair.

Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:25:46

Yeah, as people have said, this is obviously a site which has been under discussion for

a long time.

I'm going to vote against it when we discussed the local plan in 2017 and was at the examination

in public after which the number of sites across the whole master plan area

was reduced so we're expecting an application to come forward on this site

and I do agree with the comments from various rejectors that it's the way

they're all linked together is unhelpful they haven't necessarily come forward in

the phasing that was expected, which means in particular that a lot of the infrastructure

issues and things like affordable housing are being left for the two big applications

to come in.

And it's not entirely clear that although there's financial contributions being made

from these, from this application and from the nine houses that we heard referred to,

It's not clear that that will be sufficient to meet the aspirations of the local plan.

There were a couple of particular issues I wanted to raise.

The report talks about cycle improved links to Ibercimnias Road and beyond.

I can't see any improved links outside the site.

and it has been a persistent issue right through the master plan process

that there's a lot in there to improve, a lot there relevant to walking and so forth within the site.

But once you get beyond the site, there's relocation of a couple of bus stops

and possibly some real -time information being added,

but actually nothing substantive that makes it easier to get from the site

to the facilities in the centre of town

and the station and so forth.

And that seems a big omission and something's missing.

The layout itself seems reasonable.

And the construction of the bund and so forth

are not quite clear whether that's intended

to be constructed for the entire site at once.

Because clearly the master plan talks about the bund

running the length of the site where it's needed

to obscure the traffic or just within this, the red line,

which apart from anything else is inefficient

and also where the construction material

for the bund are going to come from.

And when I've had discussions on this previously,

a lot of the work, because it's a large site,

understood a lot of the earth movements

were able to happen within the site

without needing to import stuff in.

Obviously, it's a smaller site.

It'd be helpful to get some understanding

of how that's being managed with the construction plan

and so forth, because as we heard,

there'll be a lot of vehicle movements anyway,

and the more we can restrict the importation material

to the site, the better in construction terms,

and given how busy those roads are.

The landscaping plans show some landscaping off the site

beyond the red line, and I just want a clarification

on how that's gonna be dealt with,

whether that's through the section 106 agreement

or otherwise. And finally we're about to adopt the Epping neighbourhood plan but

don't see any reference to that and the policies and they would plan in terms of

the assessment of the application and be helpful to have some guidance on that as

well. Thanks Chairman. Thank you. Kelly could you answer the questions posed

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:29:32

there regarding the cycle route, the bummed and the landscaping please? So not

be cycling but cycling and walking, you know, active travel.

Cycling and walking route to wherever they're going?

Kelly Sweeney - 0:29:48

Yeah, sure. So in terms of the bond, there's a condition recommended for a construction management plan.

So obviously we can deal with how that is constructed and dealt with when that condition comes in for approval.

In regard to the cycle links, the proposed pedestrian and cycle links relate to mostly within the development.

Obviously this is a substantial site if you look at the entire site allocation.

So the improvements are about linking Ivy Chimney Road all the way through the site towards what would eventually become a sang.

and the idea of the SANG is that residents from out with the application

site would also use that area of land. There'd also be potential improvements

with the site but it's likely that the larger developers will be required to

contribute, make further contributions towards a sustainable transport links

that would improve linkages from the High Street to the site.

The other question, sorry, you have to remind me,

there was another couple of questions.

Yeah, looking at the landscaping plan,

it talks about some screenings and boundary treatments,

which are outside the red line,

Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:31:18

and I wondered how they were gonna be insured,

and the sort of lack of reference

to the neighbourhood planning policies, please.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:31:30

In terms of the Epping Neighbourhood Plan, obviously that doesn't have as much weight

as the adopted local plan, the site allocation and the endorsed master plan.

So it's considered that we've covered all the relevant issues in the report.

In terms of landscaping, obviously we have to assess what's in front of us, so we're

dealing with the landscaping that's within this site, but obviously there's going to

be additional landscaping and screening and all manner of things across the entire master

plan, and they will be brought forward by the other developers and there will be those

requirements in the section 106 agreement to ensure that the maintenance and management

of the entire site are interlinked amongst all of the four developers and that's something

that came up in the Bridge Hill application that was approved by committee A in November

last year. So those similar questions about phasing and how the site would be managed

were covered in that meeting last year when we looked at the other site.

So the same conditions and requirements in section 106 would apply to this site.

Thank you.

And if we just stick with the tradition of going through the chair, please.

Thank you. Members?

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:32:57

Councillor Colle.

Thank you.

Councillor George.

Hi, good evening everyone.

Cllr Mandy George - 0:33:09

I also agree with Councillor Whitehouse, sorry, how have I gotten your surname?

The public speaker, so I didn't write down your name, and the other speaker.

I'm quite local to this area and I don't even venture down there when I'm on the school

drop off because it's absolutely mayhem.

It needs reorganisation, it's dangerous for the children and it's dangerous for anyone

Even when the M25 is out and all the traffic is diverted and lots of people go down there,

I turn around and go up the high street and just hope for the best I can get through the traffic.

Good points being made all round, but my most important point, apart from the residents having the impact with the HDVs coming and going on a daily basis,

it would be good to find out how many HDVs are expected on a daily basis coming to the

place and away from it.

Ibercimy School, they have a breakfast club from 7 .45 to 8 .45 every day and an afternoon

club from 3 .15 to 5 .30 and the huge amount of children there and parents coming to and

from plus the staff turning up to school,

they go back to school on the 3rd of September,

as far as I'm aware on their website,

but is there a consideration that a construction traffic

management plan be in place?

So no HGV arrivals or departure between 7 .30 and nine o 'clock

and then between 2 .45 PM and 5 .45 PM on school days

during term time.

All deliveries are to be pre -booked, a train traffic

marshal to supervise HGV movements at the site entrance,

no construction vehicles waiting or queuing on the public highway

because it's very narrow roads there, and an agreed HGV route

that minimises conflict with school traffic.

Thank you.

I think most of those things are conditioned, are they not?

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:35:14

That's right, they are conditioned.

Thank you.

Sorry, did the officers say that all the conditions are there, that is to us?

Yeah, they are on it.

Councillor Bassett.

Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:35:34

Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I've been having a little look at this. I know the area quite well as well.

We have got a supplementary committee report on this from about the Essex County Council of SUTS.

Can we ask that all the points they have raised have now been included within the conditions

because they are actually suggesting conditions?

I will start with that one.

Can you answer that, Kelly?

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:36:07

Have the supplementary conditions on the supplementary agenda been incorporated or will be incorporated?

Absolutely.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:36:11

They have been agreed by the applicant so I have written confirmation that they are

happy for them to be included.

Thank you.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:36:21

Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:36:22

Next one, I see we've still got to agree on Section 106.

I saw things like 2 .2 % towards various things.

I would like to see what the Section 106 really does include,

because it's always a bit of a grey art as to what's going to

be in there, if there's going to be some for education.

Transport, the problem is highways have not objected,

so it does make it very difficult to pass too much.

But obviously they're worried.

But I do agree totally with Councillor George

on traffic management, I'd actually wrote that down as well.

And I'd say it doesn't look an overdevelopment,

it's not crowded in there like it could be.

It's quite a spaced out development.

The affordable bits, hopefully we can get them included

in the other developments that are coming through.

Trust officers will say that.

I can see there's only six, and I know about viability

assessments really well.

And at the moment, developers are struggling with the cost of

materials, the build, getting, shall we say, trades on site.

But with the other things there, on balance,

I don't have a problem with it, but on balance.

Thank you. The financial obligations are actually on page 15 of your agenda.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:37:49

Councillor Bromwich. Thank you, Chair. I agree with Councillor

Cllr Tom Bromwich - 0:37:58

George. There have been some really good speakers on this this evening. I have a few things

that I am a bit conflicted on. There are a few things I am not too happy with. Then I

I mean, I've got a question at the end.

I mean, first of all, with what Councillor Bassett just said about the 40 % target, I

just took a look at the notes in regard to that.

And I think it's disappointing that there's not more adherence to that 40 % affordable

housing target.

As the speaker, the public speaker said, it's they're not looking like they're going to

be homes that are affordable to people like me, for instance.

And ultimately, we need more of them.

Affordable houses, that is, whatever that term means

nowadays.

Unlike Councillor Bassett was saying,

nothing could be done about this.

Let's just pack some.

If we are going to do this, pack some more houses on there.

But that's just my personal perspective.

And then on the cycling, am I right

thinking that the cycle links connect up to other local cycling or do they just connect up to

the road? That's a question before I ask my supplementary question.

The way I understand it, it's the cycle which starts to connect with the other parts of the

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:39:24

master plan when that comes to fruition. Is that, could you clarify that please Kelly?

That's correct. Thank you.

Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:39:31

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:39:34

Cllr Tom Bromwich - 0:39:35

It always makes me smile when I see the cycle links introduced because I don't think I know

anyone that cycles.

We don't live in 2003 anymore.

Ubers exist, for example.

It is a difficult one because it's a local plan site, which makes this a difficult thing

to go against.

It's been endorsed by the council.

My next question is just on the number of bedrooms per property.

Am I assuming that we're looking at north of...

Well, it says if you look at the Essex parking standards,

which in my opinion aren't worth the paper they're written on,

am I right in thinking that these houses have three bedrooms,

all of them have three bedrooms, or is it between three and five,

and what's the maximum amount of bedrooms per house?

Kelly Sweeney - 0:40:30

So I've got plans here that show the different types of housing layout proposed. There's

five different housing types. So you've got here there's four bedroom, seven people houses.

They're across plots four to seven. Plots three and eight are four bedroomed, eight

person houses. Plot nine is they are four bedroomed houses and house type E you've got four bed

seven person houses and also three bed five person houses so it's mainly three and four bedroomed

properties that are proposed.

Thank you Kelly.

Cllr Tom Bromwich - 0:41:23

I look at that and I just think this is the problem. You've got eight people in one house or two parking spaces.

It's just, when is Essex Highways gonna learn that this doesn't work? Lifestyles have changed.

But anyway, I'm gonna stop before that turns into a rant.

I think it's difficult to,

I think it's difficult to oppose this because it's been endorsed by the council in 2023,

but I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it.

Thank you, chair.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:41:57

Just a couple of points that I'd just be interested to get some clarification on is how the site

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:42:00

sits within the master plan, because it sort of feels from the site plan so far that the

triangular element of the site seems to be being cut off.

That presumably falls within the ownership of this applicant.

If the plan is correct, Kelly might correct me otherwise.

So I'm just wondering whether or not we're making best use of this site.

I'm not making myself too popular by saying should it be bigger.

But the area to the left, I don't quite know what's happening there.

Whether there's a missed opportunity there, if we're going to do this, shall we rip the

band -aid off painfully?

Point two is the mechanism for the Section 106, whether or not it would be reasonable

for us to pull in a clawback mechanism.

You know, we realistically in this fascinating modern age, we know what these houses will

sell for when they do sell.

And presumably it will be possible for officers at that point to marry up that data with the

data that's been presented in the BNP Paribas report.

And obviously if the data is miles out, there will be a potential for us to tell her and

say, I think we need to have a look at this.

but I defer to officers on that point.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:43:29

Kelly Sweeney - 0:43:36

Just on the point of the land and whether or not we could maximise the use of the site a bit more,

I think this part of the master plan is quite constrained because you've got the M25 obviously to the south,

and obviously there's a need for some kind of noise attenuation which they have provided,

So in that respect they wouldn't really be able to build sort of too close to the south of the site

In terms of this parcel of land here again, and it's what narrows quite

Suddenly and again you have the m25 running along the site

So I do wonder if that's the reason that it wasn't included in the master plan

is because again of that proximity to the waterway and

in regards to the clawback mechanism

I guess that's something that we could consider, however I think given the small number of units on the site

it's pretty evident from the viability appraisal that it wouldn't be viable to provide any affordable on -site

including no off -site contribution. I think it's very unlikely that we would actually achieve very much

even if we did include that clawback mechanism given the small number of units.

Thank you.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:44:59

Cllr Barbara Cohen - 0:45:01

So looking at the plan as I am at the moment, what would be the maximum number of cars that

could be parked on that site for that housing development?

Because I can't see how they can get many cars on there at all.

What is what does that what is that the designer of the site?

Envisaged the car parking situation to be like you could actually get through that road and park your car

How many cars could could be it should be left there?

Can squeeze on the site

Kelly Sweeney - 0:45:39

So standards requires a minimum of 22 .5 spaces

for the development and that there are 22 proposed.

And obviously it's been checked by highway's engineers

who have raised no objections.

So the quantum of parking is acceptable.

Thank you.

Thank you again, Chair.

I'm sorry to rattle on again.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:46:12

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:46:16

But how would you service the site if the dust carts come in and they get all the way

to the very end of the site, last house?

The dust cart then, if those car parking spaces are all taken up by cars, has the dust cart

got to reverse the entire way up to the top of the site to turn around?

I would have thought that there should be a way of it being able to turn around safely,

but I don't think it would be able to in that.

I think that actually comes under building regs rather than planning.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:46:46

Did you have an answer to that, Kate?

Kelly Sweeney - 0:46:52

Obviously we have the construction management condition, so we would look at that and again,

this has been looked at by highway engineers who consider it to be acceptable and the cul -de -sac

arrangement is not an unusual arrangement so officers consider that it

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:47:15

would be an issue. Thank you. Any further members? The application is before us

recommended for approval with conditions and subject to a section 106 agreement.

All those in favour, please show.

Sorry, can I just jump in?

Sorry, this happened with the

application before the vote was taken.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:47:35

The recommendation is approval subject to conditions in section 106 as well as delegating changes to section 106 to officers.

Thank you.

Sorry, Kelly, you've got your hand up.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:47:54

Sorry, did you catch, maybe you didn't catch what I said then, apologies.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:48:12

Just on the Bridge Hill application that was voted on in November, I just wanted to flag up that the recommendation is to grant subject to the Section 106 but also that any changes to the Section 106 is delegated to officers.

so that would also have to be included as part of the vote.

All right, thank you.

So, the recommendation is to approve the conditions

and that the officers will,

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:48:33

the condition will be delegated to officers

and subject to a section 106 legal agreement.

All those in favour, please show.

Two, Chairman.

All those against.

Four, Chairman.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:48:56

Abstentions? Thank you. Therefore that officers recommendation has not been

accepted. Have we a proposer and reasons for refusal?

Cllr Mandy George - 0:49:11

Councillor George. Can I suggest one please? The infrastructure of the roads I

don't think are going to hold quite much more than what they're doing. The safety of

residents, especially the children at school. So can that be one of them or not?

I'd like some guidance on this please.

Highways. It is relevant but I would strongly recommend not putting that as a

James Rogers - 0:49:36

reason for refusal. In the absence of a highway objection to have that would be

difficult to defend so I would recommend not.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:49:48

Cllr Karen McIvor - 0:49:52

I would also like to show my concern for going back to, it's already been discussed from

Councillor George regarding the area where the school is. That particular road, people

that know it, is dangerous even when the school isn't in attendance. So when the school is

there, the parents are coming, you know, even with the school not there, it's hard to get

cars through and it's meant to be a double road people people double park as

it is so and that's my reason for objecting thank you yeah I appreciate it

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:50:27

but again as the point of it says they had highways have not objected thank

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:50:36

you chair I'm just thinking that I mean my position as an abstention is based on

my, what would help me going forward is to have a better understanding of how that roadway

works. That's my particular concern. It's not a highways issue. It's how the site layout

works. And, you know, once, obviously the design is up on the screen. That dead end

is not a dead end, I would imagine. That's where it links up with the next phase. I think

if we knew what the next phase looked like,

and there is a lovely great big turning head there,

so vehicles can manoeuvre and get out,

that would alleviate my concerns.

I don't know whether or not actually

what we should be looking at, rather than a refusal.

I know it's not particularly popular,

is actually a deferral until we know

a bit more information about what's coming.

Whether or not that's actually something possible

for the legal officers.

How it sits, after we are looking at a master plan, and if we're thinking about a master

plan, we should be thinking about a master plan, not a part of a plan.

Are you proposing a deferral?

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:51:48

I would propose a deferral if members...

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:51:51

On the grounds of, we're waiting to see what develops.

We need to see what comes.

Can I just come in?

Yes, of course.

James Rogers - 0:52:01

Sorry, just to come in, the purpose of the master plan that's been endorsed is to have

certainty of how these individual land parcels are going to comprehensively develop into

a place for people.

Rather than having it carved up individually, the purpose of the endorsed master plan was

to allow these smaller applications to come forward and still create these places for

people.

So what this application can't be is beholden to an application that we don't know when

would come in or, and this is a general point, and the whole idea behind the work that we

put through that master plan was so that we can have these applications come forward and

still have that overall comprehensive development.

So, I don't think a deferral would assist in that sense.

Thank you.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:53:00

So, have we got valid planning reasons to refuse this application on an allocated... Sorry?

Chair, it's Nicholas Ayers, Deputy Monitoring Officer. I just wanted to add that...

Nicola Sayers - 0:53:11

endorse James' comments and I would not advise deferring on that basis.

Yeah, no, thank you. Sorry, going back to, yes, so it's an allocated site and have we

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:53:24

got valid planning reasons to object to this application?

Can I come in again just quickly? Of course.

James Rogers - 0:53:35

So I just want to come in again and emphasise, we are subject to the tilted balance. It's

plan, this is one of those allocations.

If we should support the application unless there are significant and demonstrable reasons

not to, that is what the MPPF says we must do.

So I would urge members to think about whether there are those reasons that would constitute

a reason for refusal that can be defended.

Councillor Bromwich.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:54:11

Cllr Tom Bromwich - 0:54:13

For the sole reason, as someone like Councillor Kaufman who also abstained on this, because

it is in the local plan, for the sole reason that it was endorsed by this council in 2023,

for no other merits than that, I would be prepared to support this in principle and

switch from abstain.

Thank you.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:54:35

As has been pointed out, should it be refused, go to appeal.

We haven't got a basic leg to stand on.

So shall we go to Plan B and have another vote?

Members happy with that?

Is that democratic?

Laura Kirman - 0:54:51

You need to move forward one way or another, Chairman.

If there are no valid reasons put forward,

you're gonna have to go back to a vote.

Right, so, Councillor Cohen.

Is there any way we could have more parking

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:55:02

Cllr Barbara Cohen - 0:55:06

in this development? Is there any way that there could be any more parking?

Is that what that would be? There is with condition.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:55:15

A decision needs to be made on what's been put forward.

James Rogers - 0:55:16

So in the officer report it does set out that there is there's 22 spaces proposed. This is

close to Epping station and to one of the most sustainable places in the district with Epping

High Street not far away, the London Underground Station is what it is. So a decision really

needs to be made on what's in front of us now.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:55:43

So members, given the additional information that we've been given by the planning officers,

the officers recommendation is to approve this application with conditions and delegate

to officers to decide those conditions and subject to the Section 106 legal agreement.

All those in favour, please show.

Three, Chairman.

All those against.

Two, Chairman.

Abstentions.

Three, Chairman.

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:56:20

Therefore, that application has been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed.

Right, there's now got to be a bit of shuffling about.

Councillor Bassett, if you'd like to take the Vice Chair. Thank you.

Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:57:12

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

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:57:36

Thank you members. For anyone watching on Teams, just for avoidance of doubt, Councillor

Heather has taken his place on the bench as ward councillor for the next item which is

EPF 014 -25. Councillor Bassett has taken my spot as vice chair and Councillor Lucas has

stepped in as sub. Councillor Lucas, do you have any declarations to declare please?

None, Chairman.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 0:58:27

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:58:29

Members, the next item is 0414 .25, which is Land Off Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey, which

is a mixed -use development comprising a care home, use Class C2, and six residential specialists

supporting living accommodation units for adults with complex learning difficulties,

dwellings together with open space, car parking, landscaping, and means of access.

The item did come to a previous, or was on a previous

Committee B agenda, but was deferred

for further information.

And Ms. Chung is going to be giving

the presentation on this item.

Thank you, Chairman.

Good evening, members.

Yee Cheung - 0:59:12

So the application site is located

to the south of Honey Lane, to the north of the site.

and you've got residential to the west

and residential to the north

with the Honey Lane residential care home opposite.

The rear of the site is backed onto open fields

to the south and east.

This plan shows the layout of the building

where it's positioned.

You've got the main building here to the east, and then you've got the six bungalows to the

west.

The building is sited between 20 to 30 metres away from the main road, Honey Lane.

The bungalows here, the closest ones, are sited approximately 10 metres away from the

shared boundary with the residential properties,

176A, E and F to the west.

And this plan shows the car parking layout,

the refuge collection point, you've got cycling stores

and you've got the landscaping

and the access point to the site.

Here we have the drawings,

elevational drawings of the building and you've got the front elevation here which will front

onto a honey lane and then you've got the south east elevation here to the bottom.

This slide shows the rear elevation of the building and then you've got the north west

elevation down below.

So I'm going to whiz through these ones.

These are the ground floor.

We've got ground floor, first floor,

and second floor plans of the buildings.

Unfortunately, this is like the clearest I could get

on the presentation slide,

because there's so much details on these plans.

But on pages 37, 43, and 44 of the officer report

contains a list of rooms that can be found in the building.

So this is the first floor plan, and then you've got the second floor plan.

This slide shows the elevational drawings of the bungalows to the west.

And again, this is the floor plan of the bungalow.

This slide shows the design of bin stores and the cycle storage building located to the north of the site, which was pointed out to members earlier.

Here we have, we've got site photos of the site, the application site.

On this particular slide, photo, the office is standing at the entrance of the site looking southeast.

Then on this photo it's looking directly to the rear of the site and the bottom

two photographs shows the northwest boundary of the site and you can see

the residential properties number 176A, E and F on that side.

Again, these photos are standing at the back of the site and looking towards Honey Lane.

There's some photos of the shared boundary with number 176A and E and F to the northwest

of the site. There was concerns from neighbours regarding to the boundary treatment, but I've

managed to get some photos for members to see what's there at the moment.

Here we have some site photos of Honey Lane to the east and west.

And again more photographs of Honey Lane.

So, on pages 40 to 43 in the officer report, development proposed has been carefully assessed

against Greenbelt and Greybelt. And the officers considered it important to draw members' attention

to the unmet need in the officer report on page 42. So, what I'll do is I'll read it

out to members.

So on table eight, on the page 39 of this supported

and specialist housing accommodation need assessment

that was published by Essex County Council

on the 4th of August, 2025,

it summarises the estimate need for supported

and specialist housing and accommodation

for different population groups in the district.

The report shows that in 2029,

an oversupply of 16 beds for residential care

and under supply of 54 nursing care beds given is the combined total need of 38 residential

and nursing care beds. When considered against the recent completion of the 66 care home at

Chapelfield Nursery, now known or now it's called Kingly Court Care Home, this indicates there is

not currently an unmet need for this type of provision. However, by 2034 the assessment

indicates that there is an under supply of 85 residential care beds and a further

188 nursing care home beds. This is a total need for 273 care beds. The level of

need increases for the subsequent assessments dated, and that's in the

report, the assessment between 2039 and 2044. The applicant

confirms that the completion would be expected by late 2029 or early 2030 and full occupation would

occur in the following years through to 2034. This would support the combined need of 273

residential and nursing care bed spaces in the period between 2029 and 2034 which will record

with policy H1. As there will be a need for this type of housing stock, in the life of

this full occupation by 2034, it's important to note that the Kingley Court care home offers

residential care and not nursing care as this development proposal proposes, and therefore

there's an identified need for nursing care. Kingley Court care home is not contributing

to the supply of nursing care home accommodation.

And the reason why we know this is that the officers reached

out to the Kingley Court Care Home and had this confirmed.

So in planning balance and conclusion,

as mentioned, the officers has assessed this case

against the Greenbelt and Greybelt policy.

There's an unmet need for the case.

The design development of the buildings are acceptable.

The case office is considered the immunity of the future occupants, the residential immunity,

and then you've got the highways and access parking, sustainable location, ecology.

we've considered ecology and the applicant has gone

to the extent of even obtaining a new licence

with Natural England for this case.

Then we've got land contamination.

That's, there's no issues with, no issues with flood risk.

The application would accord with,

with the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation

and an appropriate assessment and mitigations

has been carried out and agreed with Natural England.

These mitigation measures have been listed in the officer report on page 51 and 52.

And then also in addition to this application there's also the heads of terms that the applicant

has agreed to which is in the beginning of the report. So in conclusion it's considered that

the material considerations in this case would result in significant benefits which would clearly

outweigh the harm that has been identified, namely the identified unmet need for specialist

accommodation in the Eppen district in 2034 which aligns with full occupation of the scheme.

And also the development would also contribute to the council's five -year housing land supply

which is also a material consideration.

So therefore the office is recommended for an approval of this application subject to

conditions and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Mr Chung.

We have a speaker in the room this evening.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:09:10

we have the agent for the scheme, Bridget Taylor.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I would like to sum this application up in one sentence.

Public Speaker - 1:09:18

It's a high -quality proposal that meets important identified

but unmet needs for both nursing care and specialist

accommodation for those with complex learning needs,

such as Down syndrome, without giving any rise to harms.

The officer recommendation for approval and the county council's

support for the scheme reaffirm this.

We've worked positively with the offices to secure this

important development for the district.

The council's evidence, plus the planning policy officer's

response, confirms there is a need for more nursing care

accommodation, and this scheme will contribute to this.

Government policy is clear.

In these circumstances, significant weight is to be

applied to meeting those identified nursing care needs,

more so given there is dementia care in this care home.

In addition, NHS England and Essex County Council confirm the urgent need for the

purpose -built specialist bungalows which will support independent living within

the community. These are all important considerations. The officer's report

confirms that the proposal meets the grey belt policy test and therefore is

acceptable development in the green belt. Officers confirm the proposal will not

be prominent or harmful in the street scene. It is seen as a high -quality

development appropriate for its context and in a well landscaped setting not

harming any neighbouring residential amenity. There are no

highways objections or other technical concerns. The report confirms there'll be

no adverse effect on Epping Forest SAC. The result is a policy compliance scheme

supported by officers and the County Council. This is confirmed by the

significant benefits which arise which I will summarise as follows. Firstly

meeting important needs for nursing care accommodation including dementia care in

a high quality purpose -built future -proof home which utilises the

latest technology to make residents end -of -life experience as comfortable as

possible. Secondly, meeting important needs for specialist residential units

in the purpose -built bungalows which the County Council have confirmed are

desperately needed and they're not being built by anyone else. This is reflected

in the County Council's letter of support. Thirdly, as a C2 development, this can still

contribute to your housing land supply deficit and will count for the equivalent of 49 homes

for your housing land supply. Fourth, it delivers health and wellbeing benefits for vulnerable

residents within the community. Fifth, it secures significant economic benefits, including

70 full -time equivalent jobs and a 20 million pound investment into all the MABI. Sixth,

Fifth, there is a site covenant which ensures that should planning

permission be delivered, a payment of one million pound will be made to the NHS,

and that's an exceptional opportunity for additional funding to the NHS locally.

And seventh, meeting all these benefits in a sustainable location and without

any harm to any other planning interests. For all these reasons, I hope you can

support the officer recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you. We have also the ward

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:12:22

Councillor in the room with us.

Councillor Heather, please.

So you have your five minutes.

Thank you.

Cllr Steven Heather - 1:12:29

Yeah, I don't propose to talk for forever.

This is the third application on this site within 10 years.

The previous two were refused on the grounds

that it would be inappropriate development

in the Greenbelt.

Additionally, the proposal would cause significant

additional harm to its openness and would conflict

with its fundamental purpose of keeping land

permanently open.

As you notice from the overhead thing, it's a couple of fields.

All right, now the application now claims that this green belt land is in fact grey belt,

so no special circumstances need to be demonstrated.

If you can say it's grey belt, you don't have to meet any of the various criteria.

It makes life a lot easier.

When set against the requirements to become grey belt, this land is not previously developed.

It serves the purpose of checking unrestricted sprawl of a large built -up area, Baltham Abbey.

It will all eventually merge up as far as the roundabout and the M25.

It prevents neighbouring towns from merging and it preserves the setting and special character of this historic town.

That's the purpose it serves. It's Greenbelt.

I maintain it's Greenbelt, not Graybelt.

Right, the unmet need. The planning policy team commented over two years ago and concluded

that an additional 160 beds would be needed in the district. Not Waltham Abbey, in the

district by 2027. Since 2024, a new 66 bed home has been built, which is we've got up

here, kingly called. 12 purpose -built flats for people with special needs have been built

within half a mile of this site,

which is on Sherinbrook Road.

Planning permission has also been granted

to Essex County Council for the building of a 72 bed

care home within one mile of the proposed site on Hill House.

There are 11 care homes within a two mile radius

of this proposed site,

providing approximately a combined total

in excess of 700 bed spaces.

I think Wolf Mabie has provided more than its fair share

care homes for the district and I don't propose to take every point on this application to

task I think. The fact that this is an unallocated site in the local plan and the fact that it

remains green belt land is sufficient to urge members not to support the officer's recommendation.

The sustainability, yes there's a bus every 40 minutes. The first one I think would pass

there about 7 in the morning and the last one at half past 9. The protected trees, I

on about that I rest my case at the fact that this is green belt land not grey

belt thank you thank you Jim thank you councillor Heather members we have a

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:15:16

recommendation to approve members you have a floor

Thank you.

Councillor Lucas.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:15:31

And Councillor Heather, as a ward colleague, or not a colleague, sorry, ward member has

made things very clear in his view.

And I'm a Wolfram Abbey Councillor, so I do know the site.

I fully agree with what Councillor Heather has just said.

I, my own, before he even opened his words, my question to unmet need, question mark,

grey belt, question mark, one million to NHS locally, question mark, because how could

that be assured, and sustainability, question mark.

They were the four things that immediately come to my mind when I was listening to the

officer this evening.

This is not to disregard that this has been a very carefully considered application.

I really recognise that the applicant has taken a lot of consideration over a number

of years, and he's really trying to comply with policy to make a development acceptable

in this location.

And I respect that.

They're not just saying, I want to do this.

They are really trying to tick boxes.

Unfortunately, the other development at Kingsley did come in and is approved and is a good,

from what I understand, is all well.

And my feeling now is that it is not an unmet need.

We see at the top, Greenbelt slash Greybelt, really uncomfortable with that.

I think it's Greenbelt.

I don't understand this.

Greenbelt, Greybelt.

I've seen many other sites that I accept as Greybelt.

I don't accept that in my view for this site.

And unmet need in 2034, we're in 2026.

And I recognise that these things take a long time to develop and accommodate.

But right now, as I'm sitting here, I do not consider it to be an unmet need.

The design of the development is acceptable.

I like the bungalows.

I have no issue with those, to be honest,

even though I would argue that they are still inappropriate on a Greenbelt site.

But I recognise that that's probably the only part of the policy that is making this actually,

you know, just by having six bungalows on the site.

It feels like they've just put six bungalows there with that requirement of the policy

for us to accept this full application.

So I'm really uncomfortable with a lot of the things.

I have seen the site is recommended for approval with conditions subject to a section 106 legal

agreement, a fantastic section 106 legal agreement which I am disappointed for Wolfamabie not

to accept but taken into consideration the harm to the Greenbelt and I know that Wolfamabie

wants to protect the Greenbelt and that's how I'm feeling at the moment but I will see

what other members have to say and what the Pardon Officer also adds. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Lucas. Ms Chung, Mr Rogers, I think it may be salient to try and

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:18:37

alleviate some of the concerns of Councillor Lucas potentially and indeed my other colleagues.

Is there anything in particular that you would like to pick up on and just clarify?

Yee Cheung - 1:18:54

Yes, please, Chairman. The important one is for me is the unmet need. The one in Chalkfield

Nursery, the Kingley Court care home now, as I said in the presentation, it's a residential

care home. It's not a nursing care home that this application is proposing, the way there's

unmet need. Thank you. Members, Councillor McIler please.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:19:20

Cllr Karen McIvor - 1:19:27

Thank you, chair. Mine is just an observation question. So I'm looking kind of at the area

on the map. The houses that are opposite and that's kind of to the left of the drawing

I'm looking at which is on the presentation.

I'm just going to ask, how many floors are those buildings around over, because the main

part of this building is over three floors. So is the property around there, are the properties

over three floors or are they over two floors? Is it going to stand out like a monstrosity?

Yee Cheung - 1:20:11

The dwellings on the west side, sorry, and to the...

I'm looking at the survey, if that's any help to you.

Oh, sorry. Should I point it out from this?

Yeah, the left side of the line.

So the dwellings on this side are two storeys.

These dwellings here are also two storeys in height.

and I note your concerns regarding to like three storeys

of this building, but if you look at it as a whole,

the design, it's like part two storey and part three storey,

so it's not gonna be that imposing when looked at

in context of the area.

Okay, thank you.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:20:57

Thank you for letting me come back, Chairman.

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:21:00

I just wanted to get clarification from the planning officer.

When you come back to me on the unmet need,

could you just clarify, because I'm a bit confused through the report,

and it's probably my ignorance for understanding,

but you mentioned about unmet need in 2034.

Is that for care home, or is that for residential home?

It's for both, but it's more on the nursing element.

Yee Cheung - 1:21:30

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:21:33

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:21:34

So as we are today, do we have an unmet need for both of those, or is there one that's

more, that's relevant?

Yee Cheung - 1:21:45

This was in the officer report.

You can come back to me in a minute if other people have questions.

I have got Councillor George next but I don't want to overload Ms Chung.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:22:03

Councillor George, I'm sure we can write it down.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Mandy George - 1:22:11

I'm just coming back, John, to the £1 million that's going to be given under the S106 agreement.

How do you have any information how that's going to be utilised so the residents within

Wolvermabie will benefit from that amount and it's not absorbed into admin costs or

anything else to do with that side.

Regarding the needs, Councillor Hevers said there's already 700 places presently for people

who are neurological and dementia and even downs.

So my concern is also the amount of staff that is needed

to facilitate the people that come and live here

and have independent living.

Now, can the roads cope with that amount of traffic,

with people turning up?

What is the ratio anticipated for every resident there

that staffing levels are needed?

So if you're looking at medical as well,

you're not just going to have staffing ratios.

I know from working with SEMH children that we need at least one to two, one to three

depending on their needs.

So what is that ratio for adults or those that are coming into the facility and the

impact of traffic in that area too with not only other professionals turning up but the

workers working there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor George.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:23:31

I suppose in terms of packaging for how the 106 would work,

that's a question for our legal services team,

as to whether it is possible.

It's not a Section 106.

What's controlling this?

What's the legal count contribution?

Whereforefore?

Cllr Mandy George - 1:23:47

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:23:51

Yes, so that's separate to the Section 106 contribution.

Public Speaker - 1:23:52

So, yeah.

So it's an overage clause in the title to the land.

So it's sort of separate to the planning process.

There is...

It's not a planning matter.

Can I come in on that?

Sorry.

Just to come in on that.

That can't be material to this decision.

James Rogers - 1:24:10

A Section 106 can only be imposed where it passes the

CIL tests, which is reasonable and necessary and related to

the development in kind.

Now, the NHS have commented on this.

They have required a contribution of 58 ,548 pounds,

index linked as part of the section 106 package. The 1 million pounds is

completely separate, cannot be a material consideration because we cannot impose

it. We cannot require it because that is not what the NHS have said. So I just

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:24:44

wanted to clarify that point. Thank you Mr. Rogers. Do we have an answer for

Councillor Lucas's question.

Yes, so on the second paragraph on here,

Yee Cheung - 1:24:55

that there is at this,

if we're talking at this present time,

there is not currently an unmet need.

However, what we've got to consider is,

so should this application gets approved,

the applicant has to go through

the section 106 legal agreements,

they've got a discharge conditions,

they've got a jump through series of hoots basically and then for the

development to be carried out so yeah so by the time it reaches when we reached

it 20 29 or 2030 yeah this this will meet the need

It would have lapsed by the...

The application would have lapsed by the 2030.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:25:46

So we go three -year consent, no?

On this occasion.

Public Speaker - 1:26:02

Sorry, the Essex County Council report from the end of last year

says that there's a need for 54 nursing beds presently.

So there is an unmet need now and that increases to 2034.

That's addressed in the Planning Policy Officers

correspondent.

Councillor Lucas.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:26:23

Whilst I appreciate your input

and it is sometimes relevant,

I'm sure that at the end of last year

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:26:27

they didn't take into consideration

that the homes have been completed this year.

members. I think, oh, Councillor McIver.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:26:37

Question. Sorry. Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Karen McIvor - 1:26:42

Could you just, so for clarity so we understand, when we look at developments like this, are

they for residents in our area or are they for overspills of other areas such as people,

I don't know, maybe say from London coming here to have care? Could somebody just clarify

that please thank you. I think that's outside of our control by Mr. Rogers.

James Rogers - 1:27:07

It's right it's it's a general record so anybody who needs it could apply to use

it essentially.

Thank you Mr. Rogers.

Have you got any?

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:27:16

No I think we've gone through most of the things I've had.

If we say that it's on Greenbelt is that a good enough reason to refuse?

Cllr Barbara Cohen - 1:27:25

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:27:29

James Rogers - 1:27:33

All grey belt sites are green belt. That is a definitional fact. They have to be within

the green belt, first and foremost. They do not have to be previously developed. The requirement

is that they should not strongly contribute to the purposes A, B or D as defined in the

belt. So if members take the view that it is not a grey belt site then it

cannot comply with paragraph 155 which would make it inappropriate

development in the green belt. Now that is a decision for members to take. What I

would remind you is that we are subject to the tilted balance so any reasons

that we say have to be significant and demonstrable to outweigh the benefits

that have been identified so I just remind them about that. Thank you Mr.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:28:29

Rogers so for members the judgement is yours you can make that that judgement.

Unless anyone's got anything further to add members we do have a recommendation

to approve can I have a show of hands in favour of this application please. Two

All those against?

Five, Chairman. Six, Chairman, sorry.

Abstentions?

None.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:29:02

Therefore, members, we have decided to go against the officer's recommendation.

Please can I have a suggestion of a reason for refusal, reasons for refusal, and a proposer for that, please?

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:29:27

If you could give me one minute because I have it in my notes here somewhere.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:29:31

I think it's fair to say that.

Just bearing in mind the reasons for refusal on the previous application.

sorry, that's it, 0817 stroke 22.

I was just, unless members have any reasons against that,

that we might be able to run with that,

but Councillor Lucas, please.

Thank you, Chairman, that was exactly what I was looking for

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:30:10

because that was what came to my mind

and when reading the report,

I believe that that still stands

as an appropriate reason for refusal.

I don't know if there's anything that we have to add based on any changes within the last

four years, but I believe that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the

Greenbelt.

Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Greenbelt.

The proposal would cause significant harm to its openness and would conflict with its

fundamental purpose of keeping land permanently open.

The nature of the proposal would cause significant increase in the residential paraphernalia

in and around the site, which would cause additional significant harm to the character

of the Greenbelt.

The very special circumstances advanced by the applicant do not clearly outweigh these

identified harms to the green belt and other harms identified.

I assume that that, contrary to policy, is still relevant and the requirements of Chapter

13 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I mean, the additional reasons for refusal I think are also relevant in regards to the

appropriate mechanism, the financial contribution one

probably is less relevant now.

But the first two are definitely still relevant.

Thank you, Councillor Lucas.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:31:31

Assuming legal team doesn't say otherwise,

can I have a seconder for that?

Can I just come in, sorry.

Mr. McRoberts.

Sorry, just to come in.

James Rogers - 1:31:41

Can I just ask for some clarification about our members,

obviously I'm not preempting the vote,

but if our members saying that it's inappropriate

development because there's no demonstrable need or because it's not a grey belt site.

Then the second point was just on what Councillor Lucas just said.

I would suggest if a reason for refusal is passed, I would also recommend a reason for refusal based

on the lack of a mechanism to secure the money for the FSAC and the other infrastructure provision

needed so I'd say that is still relevant to this application.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:32:23

Councillor Reekers, thank you. I can answer your question in that I believe

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:32:26

that the unmet need doesn't give us any special circumstances to outweigh the

harm to the to the Greenbelt. I do believe it not to not be Greybelt as

well but take on board whatever everybody says I believe it's Greenbelt.

If there was a serious unmet need that was very high at this time I may have

reminded to feel differently but that's how I feel at the moment. Thank you.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:32:53

Assuming where I was going was to run with what Councillor Lucas's

suggestion was. If I may have a seconder for that please. Thank You Councillor

Cllr Mandy George - 1:33:06

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:33:09

George. Members the recommendation is to refuse for the reasons as set out. I'm

to defer for officers to finalise the wording if that's okay.

James Rogers - 1:33:20

Yeah so just to clarify then before the vote, the vote is that it's inappropriate

development in the Greenbelt that there is no suitable mechanism to secure the

necessary financial contributions towards FSAC and other infrastructure

provision. Just wanted to make sure that's my understanding.

Obviously harm in the Greenbelt and so on and so forth.

So, Councillor Leekers.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:33:41

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:33:43

I think we also need to add the second part in terms of the significant harm to the landscape

character of the site as well.

So that's Greenville and it's pointed out that.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:33:52

Officers, members, may I please have a show of hands in favour of that recommendation

please?

Six, Chairman.

All those against? One chairman. And any abstentions? One chairman.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:34:18

There, I think I'm turning it off and turning it on. Members, that item is therefore

refused so we then move on to, I'm going to guess it's going to be item 10 which

10 Any other business

any other business members? Therefore members I close the meeting at 8 .34. Thank you.

Cllr Richard Bassett

District councillor for Roydon and Lower Nazeing ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Denise Bastick

Licensing Compliance Officer

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Cllr Tom Bromwich

District councillor for North Weald Bassett ward

Epping Forest Independents Group

View profile

Yee Cheung

Senior Planning Officer

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Cllr Barbara Cohen

District councillor for Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge ward

Loughton Residents Association

View profile

Sukhi Dhadwar

Principal Planning Officer

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Cllr Mandy George

District councillor for Epping West and Rural ward

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Steven Heather

District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Will Kauffman

District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward

Loughton Residents Association

View profile

Laura Kirman

Democratic Services Officer

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Cllr Jodie Lucas

District councillor for Waltham Abbey West ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Karen McIvor

District councillor for Rural East ward

Reform UK

View profile

James Rogers

Team Manager - Applications an Appeals

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Nicola Sayers

Head of Legal

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Public Speaker

View profile

Kelly Sweeney

Principal Planning Officer

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Cllr Jon Whitehouse

District councillor for Epping East ward

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Ken Williamson

District councillor for Buckhurst Hill West ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Interactive webcast player

Planning Committee AWednesday, 22nd July 2026 at 7:00pm

1 Webcasting Introduction

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:00:00

2 ADVICE TO PUBLIC AND SPEAKERS ATTENDING THE COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

3 Apologies for absence

Laura Kirman - 0:01:34

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:01:44

4 Substitute Members

5 Declarations of interest

6 Minutes

7 EPF/2004/25 - 6 Lilac House, London Road, Stanford Rivers, Ongar, CM5 9PH

Sukhi Dhadwar - 0:02:22

Yee Cheung - 0:02:26

Nathaniel Raimi - 0:02:44

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:06:11

Public Speaker - 0:06:35

Public Speaker - 0:09:54

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:12:14

Denise Bastick - 0:12:23

Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:12:29

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:13:43

8 EPF/0181/26 - Green Acres, Ivy Chimneys, Epping, CM16 4EL

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:14:09

Kelly Sweeney - 0:17:22

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:19:44

Public Speaker - 0:19:52

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:23:11

Public Speaker - 0:23:19

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:25:40

Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:25:46

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:29:32

Kelly Sweeney - 0:29:48

Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:31:18

Kelly Sweeney - 0:31:30

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:32:57

Cllr Mandy George - 0:33:09

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:35:14

Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:35:34

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:36:07

Kelly Sweeney - 0:36:11

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:36:21

Cllr Richard Bassett - 0:36:22

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:37:49

Cllr Tom Bromwich - 0:37:58

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:39:24

Cllr Ken Williamson - 0:39:31

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:39:34

Cllr Tom Bromwich - 0:39:35

Kelly Sweeney - 0:40:30

Cllr Tom Bromwich - 0:41:23

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:41:57

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:42:00

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:43:29

Kelly Sweeney - 0:43:36

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:44:59

Cllr Barbara Cohen - 0:45:01

Kelly Sweeney - 0:45:39

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:46:12

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:46:16

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:46:46

Kelly Sweeney - 0:46:52

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:47:15

Kelly Sweeney - 0:47:35

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:47:54

Kelly Sweeney - 0:48:12

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:48:33

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:48:56

Cllr Mandy George - 0:49:11

James Rogers - 0:49:36

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:49:48

Cllr Karen McIvor - 0:49:52

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:50:27

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:50:36

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:51:48

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:51:51

James Rogers - 0:52:01

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:53:00

Nicola Sayers - 0:53:11

Cllr Steven Heather - 0:53:24

Planning Committee A
Wednesday, 22nd July 2026 at 7:00pm