Planning Committee B - Wednesday 23 September 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Planning Committee B
Wednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 7:00pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Mary Dadd

1 WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION

Share this agenda point

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

Share this agenda point

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

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Share this agenda point

Louis Beardmore
Cllr Mary Dadd
Louis Beardmore
Cllr Mary Dadd

6 MINUTES

Share this agenda point

Minutes Public Pack, 12/08/2026 Planning Committee B

7 EPF/0602/26 - 70 High Road, Buckhurst Hill, IG9 5RW

Share this agenda point

Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Mary Dadd
Public Speaker
Cllr Mary Dadd
Public Speaker
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Graham Wiskin
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Graham Wiskin
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Graham Wiskin
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Graham Wiskin
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Lisa Morgan
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Lisa Morgan
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Mary Dadd
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Mary Dadd
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Lisa Morgan
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Geoff Shaw
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Geoff Shaw
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Graham Wiskin
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Will Kauffman
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Mary Dadd

8 EPF/2020/20 - Garage Site at Ladyfields, Loughton, IG10 3RP

Share this agenda point

EPF/2020/20 - Garage Site at Ladyfields, Loughton, IG10 3RP

Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Public Speaker
Cllr Mary Dadd
Public Speaker
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Stephen Murray
Cllr Sheree Rackham
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Sheree Rackham
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Chidi Nweke
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Stephen Murray
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Kelly Sweeney
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Mary Dadd
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Mary Dadd
Kelly Sweeney
Public Speaker
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jamie Braha
Cllr Mary Dadd
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Geoff Shaw
Cllr Lisa Morgan
Cllr Geoff Shaw
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Geoff Shaw
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Mary Dadd
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Jamie Braha
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Will Kauffman
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jamie Braha
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Barbara Cohen
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Barbara Cohen
Cllr Graham Wiskin
Cllr Lisa Morgan
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Lisa Morgan
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Stephen Murray
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jodie Lucas
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Lisa Morgan
Kelly Sweeney
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Graham Wiskin
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Geoff Shaw
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jamie Braha
Cllr Mary Dadd
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Lisa Morgan
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Muhammad Rahman
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Geoff Shaw
Kelly Sweeney
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Mary Dadd
Cllr Mary Dadd

9 EPF/0419/26 - Glenholme Nursery, Nursery Road, Nazeing, Waltham Abbey, EN9 2JF

Share this agenda point

EPF/0419/26 - Glenholme Nursery, Nursery Road, Nazeing, Waltham Abbey, EN9 2JF

Cllr Will Kauffman
Cllr Jaymey McIvor
Cllr Mary Dadd
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 Mary Dadd - 0:00:00

Thank you. Good evening. This is planning meeting B on Wednesday 23 September. My name

is Councillor Mary Dadd. I shall be chairing this meeting. 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 settings 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.

Before I go any further, we have...

We need a vice chairman for this evening.

I have a proposal of Councillor Clive Amos.

Can I look at the committee and see if that is agreed?

Yes.

Agreed, thank you.

I'd like to also introduce our officers here tonight.

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

So, to my left -hand side, our planning officer, Kelly Sweeney,

Next to her is our legal representative, Rob Walker from Trowells and Hamlet.

And to my right is Councillor Amos, who is going to be Vice Chairman this time.

And Democratic Services to his right, Louis Beardman.

And the webcaster is Steve Mitchell.

Thank you.

You've already had advice if you're attending the meeting as a public speaker at Planning.

and ward members on this committee cannot determine applications in their own wards.

So when this occurs, appropriate nominated substitutes may be used for specific applications.

Can I have apologies for absence, please?

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were no apologies for absence, Chairman.

Thank you.

Louis Beardmore - 0:02:11

And number four, are there any substitute members?

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:02:14

Louis Beardmore - 0:02:17

Substituting is Councillor Cohen for Councillor Kaufman.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:02:23

Thank you. Are there any declarations of interest? No? Thank you. Number 6, minutes,

6 MINUTES

which is page 5 to 7. Can I confirm the minutes of the meeting of this committee held on the

1st of July, 2026?

Agreed.

Is that agreed? Thank you.

7 EPF/0602/26 - 70 High Road, Buckhurst Hill, IG9 5RW

Come to item number 7, EPF 0602 .26, High Road, Buckers Hill, IG9 5RW,

which is on pages 8 to 13 of your agenda pack.

And there is also a supplementary sheets, pages 1, 2, and 3, for this item.

And that is to consider the attached report for the conversion of an existing single dwelling

house into four residential units.

First of all, I come to the Presenting Officer, Kelly Sweeney. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Dadd, and good evening to members this evening.

Agenda Item 7 relates to 70 High Road, Buckhurst Hill.

Here we have the site location plan.

The application site comprises a large semi -detached residential dwelling.

It has a large driveway to the front and a large wee garden.

You will see it is on a corner plot between Devon Close and High Road.

It's in a residential area and there's no specific constraints relating to the site.

It's not in a conservation area.

There are no protected trees on the site and there's no heritage assets within close proximity

to the site.

Here we have a number of photographs.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:04:21

The photo to the top, my left hand side, is Devon Close looking west.

The one underneath that is the front elevation of the property and the larger photo is the

the rear elevation of the property.

And members will note that there's a decked area

and an outbuilding in that photo.

And following an enforcement investigation,

those items don't exist on the site anymore,

they've been removed.

Moving on to the existing floor plans and elevations.

I don't think I need to dwell on these too long.

They show a single family dwelling

in existence at the moment.

This is the proposed floor plans and elevations for the application proposal.

It's to convert the property into four separate apartments.

Members will note that each of the apartments are highlighted in different colours.

There would be three one -bedroom flats and one two -bedroom flat.

Here we have the proposed site location plan.

You can see that four off -street parking spaces are proposed.

There would be sufficient space for each parking space for vehicles to manoeuvre in and out

of those spaces and exit the site in forward gear.

In terms of alterations to the exterior of the building, these are very minor.

It is proposed to relocate the main entrance of the building from the front elevation to

the side elevation. The only other alteration would be to replace the existing front door

with a window. Overall, the development would make a positive contribution towards the Council's

five -year housing supply. The alterations to the building would be minimal and therefore

there would be no harm to the character of the area. The existing driveway can safely

accommodate four parking spaces, which is considered to be an adequate level of parking

in an area with good connectivity, being within walking distance to Buckhurst Hill underground

station. Approval is therefore recommended. Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:06:44

Thank you, Kelly. We have an objector here tonight, Anthony Nickerson. You have three

Public Speaker - 0:06:54

minutes. Good evening. My name is Tony Nickerson and I live at 17 Devon Close and I am here

to express reasons why myself and other residents feel that the proposed development of the

I -Road should not go ahead. Whilst the design of the proposed redevelopment in the four

flats has been recommended for approval by the Council, we don't feel there has been

sufficient consideration of the issues such as change of course, particularly with regard

to parking and traffic hazards.

The plots on a notoriously busy corner of Buckers Hill High Road and Devon Close

and produces more issues than one which merely fronts the high road.

The entrance exit to the property is right at the top of Devon Close on a corner,

making it difficult for cars exiting the property to see if anyone is turning left in the Devon Close

from the high road and likewise difficult for cars entering the Close

to see anyone exiting the property until the last moment.

Also at the top of Devon Close there are two mini roundabouts which are there to

the flow of traffic at the busy intersection with Palmerston Road.

However, many drivers seem to either be uncertain regarding rights of way

or simply choose to ignore them. So more cars leaving or entering Devon Close will

only increase the safety hazard. There's a popular junior school just along the high road from Devon

Close and during term time there are a considerable number of young children and mothers quite often

with prams crossing the top of the road. The addition of more cars using the Close will only

exacerbate safety issues.

The provision of four parking spaces

in the boundaries of the property

assumes that none of the residents

will have more than one car.

Indeed, a number of properties in Devon Close

do have more than one car.

There's no reason to assume the residents

of these flats would only have one.

Not only that, there's no provision

for any visitors to the property

or delivery and service vehicles.

Parking's very tight in the area

and Devon Close is no exception.

We successfully applied for 24 -7

resident permit parking because of this.

There are a limited number of spaces on the road for residents and visitors to park, and

we are concerned that an increase in the number of cars at 70 High Road could lead to the

property being allowed to apply for permits to park in Devon Close, adding further pressure.

When 70 High Road was previously occupied before building work commenced, it was not

unusual for bins to be left out on the pavement on Devon Close for lengthy periods, which

was a nuisance and a potential safety issue for pedestrians, especially given that now

every other week there are up to three bins to be collected from each property. Multiplying

this by four would seriously exacerbate this issue. Furthermore, four flats would inevitably

mean more noise and disturbance, with comings and goings two from the flats at any time.

Devon Close has acquired residential cul -de -sac of semi -detached family homes and this development

would negatively impact the character of both the Close and neighbouring houses on either

side of the high road. So we request refusal of the application. Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:09:45

Thank you. We now have the applicant's agent or applicant, Mrs Verma. Thank you. You have

three minutes.

Public Speaker - 0:09:54

Good evening, Chair and members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My family

has cared for 70 High Road since 2004. After flooding left it empty, we chose a positive

future. Four good quality, self -contained homes. This proposal does not enlarge the

building. There is no extension, no additional built form, and no new relationship with neighbouring

properties. From the street, it will continue to appear as one dwelling. I have read every

objection in detail. I understand why our neighbours seek reassurance, and I do not dismiss their

concerns. Those concerns have been tested against the plans and professional evidence.

Four on -site parking spaces are provided, one for each home. The existing vehicular

access is retained and Essex County Council Highway finds no harm to safety, capacity

or efficiency. On privacy and noise, no extension or additional massing is proposed. Screening

provided and the officer finds no harmful impact on the neighbouring living conditions.

On character, the conversion stays within the existing building,

with minimal external change and it will appear as one dwelling.

There are four self -contained homes, not shared accommodation. Every home exceeds

the national minimum space standard and has good light and outlook. It brings an empty property

back into use and provide three additional homes without taking more land. Future residents

can support local shops, transport, and services, while our section 106 contributions will help

protect Upping Forest. Bucklesdale Parish Council and county highways raise no objection.

After considering the representations, the officer identifies no planning reasons for

refusal and recommended approval. We accept the required Section 106 contributions and

the recommended conditions. Members, we hope the people who make these four homes their

own will be welcomed with the same warmth and respect our family has received. I respectfully

ask you to follow the professional recommendation and approve the application subject to the

Section 106 undertaking and conditions. Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:12:16

Thank you. The officer recommendation is to approve with conditions subject to S106 agreement

committee. First of all, can I ask if you have got any technical questions of the planning

officer?

Councillor Whiskin.

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:12:36

Can we have some details about ventilation and extraction of fumes and smoke, et cetera,

from the cooking facilities in the four self -contained units?

That's not something that we would normally require

Kelly Sweeney - 0:12:51

because residential developments are not a commercial proposal.

It would be the same as any normal single family dwelling

where people were kicking with normal kicking facilities.

We wouldn't have any reason to require additional information in that regard.

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:13:11

And also they need those regulations as well. So, yes.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:13:16

Did you want to come back to that?

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:13:18

Yes, I find that rather concerning because we are talking about cooking facilities in

all three levels, including in the loft space. And at the second floor level, the impacts

on floors above must be – have some issues. And that bothers me.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:13:39

As I said, obviously they need to apply separately for building regulations approval, so those

kind of things would have to be looked at.

They also need to seek other things like gas safety certificates and things like that.

It's not in fire safety, regulations need to be a D02, that would be separate from planning.

But in planning terms, there's no requirement for that kind of information.

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:14:09

My issue is that if there's any form of extraction, that would involve pipe work on the outside,

which would have a material effect and change on the building.

Thank you, Councillor Whiskin.

Are there any other technical questions before we come to debate?

Kelly Sweeney - 0:14:21

Councillor Morley.

It's not really too technical, but I couldn't see it on the plans.

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:14:28

Bike spaces, I couldn't see a visitor space either for the cars.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:14:38

No visitor space is proposed, so the parking requirements for this development is one space per unit.

For the two bedroomed unit, it would be one space plus 0 .25 visitor spaces.

Obviously, we would round that down.

and it wouldn't be reasonable to round that up

and ask for a visitor space

on a development site of this scale.

Sorry, can I ask the question?

But on the one thing, do they not have,

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:15:05

do they have 0 .25 under the parking scheme?

Not in this location, no.

Okay, and on the bike spaces,

I just couldn't see anything on the plans for bike spaces.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:15:18

Yes, there is an area identified on the location plan.

So this area that's in blue is bin store and for bike spaces as well.

Thank you, Anne. So it's the bin store. Thank you.

And can I just, on that point, Kelly Sweeney,

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:15:38

can I just ask, is there any space for additional cars in that outside area?

At a push.

In terms of the driveway or...?

You've actually got something on the screen there. Does that mean that the total number

of parking spaces that could physically fit in is four or could they accommodate more?

That's not something that we have tested. I would have thought it would be quite tight

Kelly Sweeney - 0:16:07

to try and fit another space in there if you want to ensure that there would be adequate

manoeuvring in the name of all species.

Thank you.

Before we go any further, I see that Councillor McIver has come.

Can I just ask you, Councillor McIver, whether you've got any interest?

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I did send my apologies for lateness.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:16:29

We can thank TfL and I have no declaration of interest. Thank you.

Thank you. And you realise you won't be able to vote on this particular item.

Thank you.

Councillor Cohen.

Thank you, Chair. What's the facilities for bin storage with all these flats?

Kelly Sweeney - 0:16:52

Again, the bin stores would be located in the driveway area, so there's this section

that's highlighted in blue where the refuge facilities would be proposed. In the supplementary

documents as well, they do provide information and details about, I don't know if you can see it,

this area here. They do provide information about the bin storage, so we are of the view

that there is space. Clearly it is a large driveway area, so there is sufficient space

for residents to store bins and put them out for bin days.

Do you want a technical question or should we open it to debate now on bins?

Just one thing.

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:17:40

I presumed it was to scale because this is why I missed the cycle bit because it doesn't

look big enough for 12 bins and four bikes.

And so I was going to say is that to scale because to me it just didn't look big enough.

It is to scale.

It's been checked by the planning officer.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:17:57

We have no reason to believe that it isn't big enough.

We think it is acceptable.

Councillor Shaw.

Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:18:10

I just wondered if there was any amenity space or communal gardens, whereabouts are they?

Please.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:18:17

The existing single family dwelling has a large rear garden.

All of the flats would have access, shared access of that garden.

And obviously with the entrance point being relocated to the side does mean that the units

on the upper floors would be able to come down, exit the building via the side entrance

and enter the garden space.

Shall we open it to debate now?

Councillor Shaw.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:18:47

Sorry, I thought it was the other way around.

Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:18:48

So the entrance to the parking is very close to the junction of the high road, is it?

And has that been approved by Essex Highways?

Yes, Essex, County Council Highways have been consulted.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:19:05

There is no objection to the layout.

They don't identify any highway safety issues.

Councillor Wiskin.

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:19:15

Essex Highway has been to sight and seen this because it is a very busy and very problematical

junction which would bother me.

I can't answer that question but what I would say is that it is already a single family

dwelling, it has already got a large driveway. As a single family dwelling there could be

Kelly Sweeney - 0:19:31

a couple of residents with a number of cars in that driveway, they could have four spaces,

We wouldn't be able to control that, so we can't substantiate any grounds to refuse

this on high -risk grounds.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:19:50

Anybody would like to start or add anything on a debate on this, please?

I'm afraid I might just drop off.

Councillor Kaufman.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:19:59

One thing I was just going to ask is, I know it's obviously one family dwelling at the

that number of flats there and obviously the bin numbers are increased by that factor.

How will the bin lorry have to sit on that particular part of the highway whilst it loads

up that many bins? Or would the bin lorry come onto site to be loaded and then reverse

back out?

Kelly Sweeney - 0:20:30

So as with any other sort of communal flatter development, residents would put their rubbish

within a communal store. And then on bin collection days, residents would be responsible for ensuring

that the bins were located close to the highway and the collection would happen in the normal

way from the main road.

Thank you. Right. Do I feel you are ready to make a vote on this? Any more questions?

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:21:02

I don't think she's a board member.

Is it a...

She's not a board member.

No. Right. Can we have a vote then on who is in favour of the proposal to approve with

conditions? Can I have a show of hands, please?

6 in favour, Chair.

And can I have those against, please?

2 against, Chair.

Any abstentions?

Well, you can't, for any rate, Councillor McIver. It doesn't count, no.

One abstention, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:21:50

We now move on to Item 8.

8 EPF/2020/20 - Garage Site at Ladyfields, Loughton, IG10 3RP

Please feel free to move.

So item 8, which is EPF 2020 -20 garage site at Ladyfields, Loughton, IG10, 3RP.

And the proposal is demolition of garages and construction of 60 unaffordable

homes with associated landscaping and works, which is a revised scheme to EPF 178 -16.

I have the Presenting Officer online tonight, and that is Mohamed Brahman. Over to you,

Mohamed.

Muhammad Rahman - 0:23:06

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Chair, members and everyone. So item 8 relates to the former

garage site at Ladyville's Clothes in Loughton. This application is before the Committee because

five or more objections have been received, and the officer recommendation is for approval.

As the Chair has alluded to, the proposal seeks to redevelop a former garage site to make more

efficient use of the land by delivering 16 affordable homes. This development is being

led by the Council's Housing Services team, and as such the homes will form part of the Council's

affordable housing stock, rather than being offered for private sale.

So turning to the slides, here we have the location plan.

Here's the site outlined in red.

It says close to the railway.

You've got a different station on the other side.

Here's the formal plan of the road carriages over here.

Here's an in -road view of the site.

So this is the site, the garage is having demolished and the site is boarded up with

hoarding.

You have existing residential units around, you have the substation over here and you

have the definitely station just across the road over here.

There's a different view of the site, you can see the hoarding.

Here's a street view.

So here's a plan of the site and the distance from the devastation.

As you can see here, it's approximately 145 metres away.

So a highly sustainable location with Dublin underground.

And the corner again a different view.

You can see the site over here and how close it is to the station.

Just want to flag up policy T1 to members.

The supporting text to the policy does stay within 400 metres.

Council will be seeking reduced parking provision, including Carthrie, as satiated slides, it's

145 metres away. So well within this policy requirement where we should seek reduced parking

provision.

In terms of the plan itself, we have the proposed layout over here. So you have two standard

along units here semi -detached with the on -profit garden space, family units, parking spaces

in front. You have the main block which contains the one bed and the two bed units along with

cycle storage and parking spaces over here, bin stores to the side of the units on either

side is an elevation so you have the two standalone ferrosemies over here these

are the family units three beds and you have the main block which contains the

remainder of the burnings mixed from one bed units to bed and they each one have the

private space with balconies. And of course there are various green space,

then walking distance. Here are the planning obligations expected from the scheme. Here

you've got air quality mitigation to the Epping Forest, visitor pressure as well, and the

several are 81 ,000.

Since – well, members will be able to – recent update to the national planning policies,

I just want to highlight a few key national decision -making policies that are

relevant since the original agenda was published for the previous meeting.

This case we're meant to go to.

So we got a key one, policy S4.

Developments within settlements should be approved unless there are impacts.

Formally it's referred to as the default ES in settlements.

This is within the settlement of Lata.

Such, in terms of its principle, it would be acceptable unless there are any adverse effects.

You've also got policy L2 and L3, making effective use of land, achieving appropriate densities.

This site, the former garage site, it ticks that box. It's utilising the whole site,

but they don't really stick in the foot of the homes to the council's housing stock.

It's not for private sale. It's to meet the needs of the council's housing rating list.

that was seeking affordable homes. The policy requires proposals to ensure make efficient use

of land, maximise it, even more sustainable locations such as this site. You've also got

policy TR3, again it comes up to sustainability. This is 145 metres away from the train station,

As I highlighted here, we need to limit the need to travel via private vehicles, promote

more walking, cycling. This location ticks the box. This is where you would want less

parking provision, residents to walk to local services, which there's ample services nearby,

mutualise the public transport, bus service, train service and you know cycle. So again,

this proposal meets this policy. Here we have up on the chair's request the landscaping

plan. This is the end design. It's probably not visible from clear from the slides. But

there are various planting and trees to be retained. One point I would just flag up for

summarising is the tree is currently on site, they have no protection, so there's no requirement for,

there's no safe plans to prevent them from being essentially removed. This permission should,

if allowed, would allow, would give formal safeguards in place to retain the trees going forward.

So, in terms of the full merits of the case, they're set out in the agenda report,

and I'll briefly summarise the case. Officers consider that the proposal represents a high

quality design that complements the current appearance of the screening and wider area.

The scheme has also received support from the Council's urban design team.

The proposal will not lead to significant harm to delivering conditions of neighbouring properties

from any harmful overlooking, overshadowing, or bearing of visual impacts or loss of life.

The site occupies a highly sustainable location, benefiting from regular bus service and the

some 145 metres away. In this context, officers consider the reduced parking provision, largely

four spaces to serve the family units. It's acceptable and members attention is also drawn

to this, no objection raised from the IWA's team and the relevant national policy shown

on the slides from the revised MPPF. For these reasons, officers recommend that planning

be granted subject to the conditions set out in the agenda report.

Thank you, Chair. I stand.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:32:07

Thank you. Before we go on, I just want to make it clear to everybody that this is Council -owned land

and we now have, and it will be for purely affordable housing for our Council waiting list.

The next speaker we have is the objector Mr Tony Folan.

Thank you.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:32:35

An objection emailed to EFDC on the 4th of January states, objection EPF 2020, Lady Fields,

Lauten where I live. Blocks of 16 tiny homes. Garages were demolished in 2021. Proposed is 12 units.

One bed, two people with no parking. Two units, two bed, four people, two parking bays.

Two units, three bed, four people, two parking bays. The design and access detail shows total

16 units, 22 bedrooms, 40 people expected and only four parking spaces. Houses on this

site and near are two storeys. Three storeys at the height of four storeys would be harmful

over development. It is bad design when 10 floor to ceiling windows on a third floor

look down onto eight two storey houses and gardens. South facing properties shadowed

overlooked would be 32, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 and 45 ladyfields.

Similarly overlooked would be 20 Portugal Lane,

which has six windows facing the proposal.

Plans show only 15 metres from the 10 third -storey windows

and to the bedroom windows of 39, 41, 43 and 45 ladyfields.

Plans also show the blocks squeezed between a narrow Ladyfields road and a busy central line track.

EFDC should not have allowed felling of mature trees on the land.

The two stumps left are one metre diameter.

EFDC's local plan, adopted March 2023, is valid until replaced.

It ensures new homes will be built by 2033.

It is unnecessary for neighbours near this site to have their immunity harmed by this

proposed overdevelopment.

Forty people living on the site will cause more damage to Epping Forest because more

people use it for recreation.

It's common sense.

Forty people on the site means more traffic, pollution and congestion.

All will exacerbate harm to the forest.

Traffic.

Year on year, Loudoun main roads become extremely busy and congested, many times, most days.

Three thousand new homes in Loudoun in the last 38 years means six thousand more cars.

Loudoun is saturated and this is a problem for residents.

EFDC owns the site.

They should not seek overdevelopment to profit at the expense of all Loudoun residents'

amenity.

Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:35:31

Parish Town Council, the Town Council,

Adam Town Council is down here to speak,

but is Councillor C Davis on?

Or online?

No?

No, right, well we'll move on then to the applicant.

And that is being,

presentation is by Omar Barber, who is online.

Thank you, Emma.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, Chair, good evening members of the committee.

This development brings an awful opportunity to deliver 16 affordable homes to the district and the Louton area.

Public Speaker - 0:36:12

It's situated close to the central line, then the station within walking distance of the roadway and many local entities and services.

The site provides a mix of tenors of one and two bed flats and three bedroom homes.

This site is providing 100 % affordable housing and is part of EFDC's long -term strategy of

delivering homes to the district.

The development has designed a passive house specification and is building regulation M42

compliant.

The district's housing register shows there are 1 ,639 households awaiting affordable housing.

935 of those households have been registered as Loughton as a preference.

The issue is that one or two bedroom units are the most sought after with 347 and 291

and applicants' regs, respectively.

Then it shows that applicants on the regs

are seeking one or two bed units

that are typically between 21 and four years of age.

The cycles of council garage sites across the district

are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain

due to their age, presence of asbestos,

and antisocial behaviour associated with these sites.

A previous scheme submitted in 2016 for six units

was accepted, but since then,

the economic side of the construction industry have resulted in the project being unviable

for fewer homes delivered. The Council has a duty to provide affordable housing to the

District and in the interest of carrying out this duty seeks to make the efficient use

of available and developable land within the District. The Council has been successful

in delivering 27 sites consisting of 97 homes and 60 flats to date. This has told of 157

affordable homes in the District. Today's decision will determine the Council will be

to provide 16 additional homes for 16 families awaiting affordable quality homes. Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:37:59

Thank you. We have in the chamber tonight some councillors from the ward and also another

councillor who also would like to speak. So I'll go over to Councillor Murray. Thank you.

Cllr Stephen Murray - 0:38:15

If you do not mind, we agreed between ourselves that the other two councillors were going

to speak first and I was going to be the third to speak if you are happy with that.

Yes, I do not mind who speaks first.

Councillor Rackham.

Cllr Sheree Rackham - 0:38:31

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your well -defined description of that area.

I'm going to mention Lucton's Close because this was an estate that was built. It was

built as a – there was parking on the estate, however, you had to pay for the parking. We've

had a lot of issues with residents. They were told that they couldn't park and lo and

behold, they come with cars. They park those cars outside other people's houses.

So here we are looking at a proposal for 16 dwellings with four parking spaces.

I just believe that the parking reduction from 20 to 40 is far too severe.

CPZ parking is already in place further up Ladyfields,

so new residents will not have any access to this.

And as we heard from one of our residents here,

the residents are already not very happy about this development.

I do appreciate Ladyfields is near to local transport links and local amenities. However,

Essex Parking Standards, on which the Epping Forest local plan is based, require a minimum

of one space per one bed, two spaces for two beds and above. This will equate to 20 spaces

and to reduce this to four spaces is excessive. From the experience of Lactans, we have seen

the fallout. With this new development, we will have one space for the houses, which

is 50 percent of the Essex standard, but then there is no parking for the flats at all.

So this is not a reduction in the parking ratio, but it's removing it completely.

And I just wondered, is this actually compliant with the policy? If the committee does pass

the application, I would like a condition added which requires the developer to submit

any marketing materials for approval by the planning officers to ensure that potential

future residents are fully aware of the parking restricted nature of this development and

they will not be entitled to CPZ permits now or any time in the future. This will stop

owners being misled.

And lastly, onto a subject that's very close to my heart, which is trees. Is there actually

a biodiversity net gain here. We are taking away mature trees, six to eight mature trees,

and Natural England has advised not to grant permission at this stage with the issue because

of the impact on the Epping Forest. And to advise the documents, I want to advise that

documents are illegal as they are email messages online and cannot be viewed, which is not

acceptable as they should be in a PDF form. And lastly, the officer's report gives no

details on why they are satisfied with the potential impacts identified in the objections,

they can be appropriately managed. Can someone advise us of this and what did you assess

this on and how do you justify the decision to be satisfied?

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:41:40

Thank you, Councillor Rackham. Can I just come back to you and clarify the questions

that you wanted answered.

So you've got the biodiversity,

and was there any biodiversity gain that you want to query?

And the one you just said now, you wanted to query.

Cllr Sheree Rackham - 0:41:57

So I'd like to know, basically, with the...

So the officer's report doesn't give any details

on why they're satisfied that the potential impacts

identified in the objections

can be appropriately managed.

So you're talking about the objections from the residents,

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:42:16

how they are managed and mitigated against?

Right, thank you.

Thank you.

Captain Reekie.

Cllr Chidi Nweke - 0:42:27

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, members.

I would like to start by recognising our resident here

to object to the development,

and I really appreciate your statements here tonight.

Members, I would like to start by saying that I support affordable housing and recognise

the needs for more genuine affordable houses in the district. So my objection is not against

affordable housing, but to the scale and design of this proposal. My concern falls into four

main areas, but I will just stick to two or three because my colleagues and the resident

I touched on some of those areas,

so I don't want to keep the committee here all day.

But I would like to point to about development of the site.

Because this proposal presents a significant

inter -institutation of development on a constraint site.

The previous King approved six affordable homes

with 23 parking spaces.

This proposal increases the number to 16 homes,

while reducing the parking spaces to just four.

The real question is whether this proposal

strikes the right balance between housing numbers,

parking, residential amenity and quality of life.

I don't believe it does.

The second is the inadequate parking provision.

Parking pressure is already a serious issue

in this part of Lauten.

The proposal assumes that residents will rely

mainly on public transport because the site is close to Debden station and on the surrounding

roads within the control parking zone. However, the control parking zone does not create more

space. Living near the station does not remove the need for a car. Many households still

need cars for work, school, caring responsibilities, joining to public, joining on places where

Public transports cannot serve due to convenience.

Providing four parking spaces for 16 homes is unrealistic.

The issue is not whether the parking problem

will be created from nothing,

but whether an already difficult situation

will be made worse, and I believe it will,

just as my colleague touched about locked -in clothes,

where we're having constant issues,

resident fighting about parking spaces,

that has been reported of criminal damages to cars parked on the road

because of lack of parking spaces.

In conclusion, I support affordable housing on this site.

However, affordable housing should not come at the expense of good planning,

adequate parking, residential amenity or local character.

The development is too intensive for this site,

provide little parking and does not sufficiently protect a neighbouring residence from overlooking

and the character of the area.

Therefore, I respectfully ask the Committee to refuse this proposal, as it is not the

right development in this site.

If a previous scheme in this site provides six homes and 23 parking spaces, how can a

scheme, would 16 homes and just four parking spaces be considered as acceptable without

adding further pressure to local roads and parking services.

Thank you, Members.

Thank you.

Councillor Murray.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:46:03

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Stephen Murray - 0:46:06

This has been in my ward for two years, but I know it far longer than that because it

was in the old Bulway Ward, which I represented for 16 years.

So I have represented this area over the period of time for a fair number of years,

about 18 years in total.

I would endorse what the resident has said.

My concerns can be divided.

First of all, I would agree with Councillor Neckie that absolutely in favour of affordable homes,

A lot of my case work consists of people who would be only too keen to move into one of

these units.

So I accept the need.

Though I did find it interesting and a bit worrying that the applicant only made the

case in terms of affordable homes, there was no attempt that I heard to defend the actual

design and the number of parking spaces and so on, which is unusual from an applicant.

So I want to divide my concerns into two.

The actual development, and you know, I'm not an architect, I'm not a professional,

but I just cannot understand how anyone can regard that as fitting in and complementary

to the existing street scene.

Right in front of that development is normal two -bedroom houses that have been there,

normal two -floor houses that have been there since they were built by the Greater London

Council in the post -war.

So I do not know how this complements the street scene in any shape or form.

And one of the policies of housing, and this is a housing application, is to develop a

sense of place and a sense of area that people can feel that they belong.

That to me runs counter to that.

I have to say my main concern is about the parking.

Just because you are near Dedham Station does not take away the need for a car.

I look at the committee before you tonight.

What if one of these residents wants to visit our museum or the wonderful Abbey Church in

Wolf Mabbie?

Well, you can't do that by public transport, or not very easily.

You need to get into a car.

What happens if someone's got an elderly relative in Onga and they want to go and visit someone

in Onga?

You don't do that by public transport.

It's just an absolute myth that because you're 500 metres from a tube station, and that is

a good service, and the busses from the Broadway aren't a bad service, but they don't go to

where you necessarily want to go.

They don't necessarily go to where Aunt Flo lives and you need to visit her at the weekend.

So these people will want cars, and there is no provision.

We have heard about the controlled parking zone.

They won't be able to access that.

They won't be allowed to legally.

We had this issue with Luckins Close.

As we all know, controlled parking zones are set up with the actual houses identified by

number that are part of that scheme and only under very, very rare circumstances are new

properties allowed to enter an existing scheme.

Lupton's Close, which is a reasonable thing

to bring into this equation,

because that sits at the other end of Ladyfield,

was very roughly, and these figures aren't far wrong,

200 developments with 100 parking spaces.

So you can understand the stress

that that has already put onto local roads.

So I say to members tonight, say yes to affordable housing, but no to the lack of parking.

Because how can—and I will just repeat what Councillor Neckie said—how can you move

from six affordable homes with 23 parking spaces to 16 affordable homes and four parking

spaces is completely unacceptable, Madam Chairman.

Thank you.

And I understand Councillor Kelfering would like to also speak.

Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:50:43

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:50:47

The, I suppose the curse of coming in as the fourth person is a lot of what I would

have said has already been sort of said, so I won't go too heavily on equally comments

that I might have will be picked up by the committee proper.

I don't think I've ever seen a site so poorly described.

The site doesn't look like that.

I was there earlier.

The hoardings are not there.

The trees are not there.

What is on site is a load of porter cabins, waste, chemicals, a diesel generator

going all day, chug, chug, chug, chug, chug, running on fossil fuels.

Nobody just knows what sort of pollution it's throwing out.

We don't know what's controlling that use, but that's not what's before us.

It's just it helps to set the tone.

And this application was obviously submitted originally in 2020, hence the reference

number is a 2020 reference number.

I would surmise that the original architect is no longer involved with it, so we seem

to be running with very old drawings.

I don't think I would even be using this scheme on the basis that it's been designed

to fit around a tree that's been poleaxed.

And the whole premise of it, as you see from the original drawing, is it sits around

the tree which I think is labelled as T1, which has got a green retention line.

It's not there.

So if that tree is not there, surely the logical thing to do would be to go back to

the drawing board and say, right, we've cleared the site, that tree is not there,

we don't need to cut this peculiar arrangement of bills to try and fit around trees

that we have cut down, we have cut them down.

If the public sector, private sector, sorry, had done this, we'd be aghast at it,

and we would be making quite a song and dance about this.

And we are in the public domain.

We have to be seen to be behaving ourselves.

How can we expect people to work to a standard that we like and we aspire to get

to if we can't deliver it ourselves.

And I really do object to this point of car parking as well.

I mean, it's assuming that every single person that lives in that development is going

to be going on the Tube, and they may not.

I mean, these are affordable homes.

So likely as not, people that are living in these homes are going

to be people that are working locally.

They're going to be single mums, single dads, young families that are working in shops.

You know, they might not have the luxury of working in any of the units in Depton.

They may be working in Goodness Knows Weather.

They may be working in more than Abbe.

They will need vehicles.

And I don't want to dwell too heavily on the points that have been raised by my colleagues.

I'm sure others will pick it up.

But I think we're working with a very old scheme.

I don't think Passive House is necessarily the all that it was that long ago.

I mean, six years ago is an awful long time in development terms.

And I think we just need to have a clean slate, start again, think about our residents,

think about what works, what doesn't, and just come up with something that works.

You know, we, we, things were better in the past, and, you know, the original

scheme that lapsed the, the 178, 175816 scheme seems, balanced to have been the answer.

So I, I, I do think that I've, one, I've spoken enough, I will stay, because we will

talk forever. But I think more thought needs to be put to this. Just because we can do

something doesn't necessarily follow that we must do that.

That is in cheque.

Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:54:34

I will now go to the committee. First of all, I want to ask if you have got any technical

questions before we come on to the debate, please, because there may well be. So technical

questions first.

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 0:54:53

Assuming reports and drawings is a technical question, are there, obviously this is quite

a lot of the reports are dated 2020, is that acceptable?

Is it, Mohamed, are you responding to this?

Kelly Sweeney - 0:55:10

Would you like K to respond?

Muhammad Rahman - 0:55:19

I can respond, Chair. In terms of the plans, revisions were made in 2025. The latest plans

for members are from November 2025, so they are fairly recent and up to date. I believe

the opposite is the Council's preferred design team across the other sites. Some of the reports

We are seeking fresh details by conditions, but in terms of the principle, they are acceptable.

You have got condition 6 and 8 seeking fresh, landscaping details.

Many of the conditions would seek fresh details, but in terms of the principle, all submitted

anyway.

The findings and reports are acceptable.

The plans are fairly new from November 2025.

that scheme was revised, we decided to support.

Yeah, I'll answer the question.

Thank you.

Council McIver.

Thank you Madam Chair, I have some points to make,

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 0:56:17

but my technical question is,

who at Epping Forest District Council

do we need to contact this evening to get this application?

Sorry, can you speak up?

Oh, I'm sorry, I was about to say that before.

So this is my technical question,

I have some points I'd like to make.

My technical question is,

who at Epping Forest District Council

do we need to contact this evening to have this application withdrawn? Because I think

it's such a bad application, I can see it being refused and to avoid a negative KPI

on our planning special measures issue, I think this, is there somebody we can contact

to have it withdrawn? Because I think clearly I can tell from the committee already, having

just only had one question, and what I want to raise, what has been said by very good

and a very clear objection,

I can see this not being refused

and I think it might make sense to contact a person

who may have decision -making power to withdraw it

to avoid a negative KPI.

Before you come to that, I'm going to go to...

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:57:14

Could I answer that?

Yes, sure.

At the end of the day, we've got an application before us

Kelly Sweeney - 0:57:22

and we must assess it and we must determine the application

irrespective of who the applicant is.

Obviously, we've had this application for a couple of years now,

and as members have highlighted, it's gone round in circles.

It's important that there's a resolution on this item,

and we wouldn't be able to withdraw at this late stage.

Can I just ask...

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 0:57:48

What is the rule that stops it from being withdrawn?

But more importantly, we've been told to take planning very, very seriously

because we're in a serious situation of the councils in special measures at significant

cost to our residents and indeed our local democracy.

I would like to know why we can't do that, simply because of our main, Madam Chairman,

because it's a very unserious application and it's been brought by this authority.

So I think it's important that we do what we can to avoid that.

Thank you, Councillor McIver.

You've made some very good points.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:58:19

What I do feel is that there is another option and that is it could be deferred pending looking

at various aspects. I think I'm correct in saying that.

Kelly Sweeney - 0:58:28

That is correct. Just to... You asked who could actually draw the application.

That would be down to the applicant.

And the applicant is the... Is the council.

Um...

Would it be...

Omar. Sorry, Omar. Does that decision lie with you or with Dawn Harrison?

I think it will often be done with Dawn Harrison.

Okay, thank you very much. That clarifies that.

Public Speaker - 0:58:57

We will perhaps continue with the technical questions and then see where this leads.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:59:02

Councillor Braga.

Sorry, I have got a few questions.

Is it just the technical questions?

Cllr Jamie Braha - 0:59:09

Yes, technical. The objective mentioned about window distances from neighbours.

We didn't get that in our report and I couldn't spot that.

Also Councillor Kaufman mentioned about the tree being removed and why the—we aren't

getting answers on why the scheme hasn't been amended if the tree has been removed.

Normally in a lifetime of an application if something changes on the site the plans would

be amended to accommodate it.

And also obviously there's been a lot of talk from the other Council members about

parking and the officer mentioned planning policy, so if that could just be clarified,

because while I understand and respect it, is there a challenge for the parking, given

that it's so close to the station and amenities? I appreciate the comments and don't necessarily

agree with the policy, but I want to clarify if it is a reasonable reason for objection.

Thank you. I am going to actually answer some of those, and I am going to go back to Mohammed

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:00:16

on that. Certainly on the parking issues, and I did query that because some people had

come to me about that, the Essex Parking Standards is not adopted by EFDC, but it is our first

consideration point of reference.

Having said that, in the parking standards,

there is a connectivity tool,

and this comes out as green, which is good,

but that comes under, if I can find the right page,

it comes under moderate connectivity,

and there is a set for table 8 .2 vehicle parking standards,

C3 residential dwellings, which for one bedroom is 1 plus 0 .25 unallocated visitor

spaces.

And this is offsite.

For two bedrooms, it's 2 plus 0 .25 unallocated visit spaces, and that comes to a total

of 24 spaces.

What it does also say is if it was high connectivity, which it is not, that a lower

level can be accepted in special circumstances with justifications.

And the justifications, and I did ask this question of

Mohammed before, and that the, again, in the parking standards,

it's expected under reduced parking provision in term of high parking stress,

which we have heard of, to a situation which demands a parking is near or

exceeds available capacity.

High parking stress can lead to antisocial parking behaviour,

et cetera, which we've heard about.

But it says developments in locations

where parking stress already exists

or is expected to develop

and whose parking requirements could aggravate matters

will be expected to undertake a parking survey

to ascertain current parking stress levels

and identify potential mitigating measures,

aggravating features and sensitive receptors.

Now, I also know that in the new NPPF, which talks about being near stations, et cetera,

also has an aspect about parking, but it does also give that caveat that if there is a problem,

then it should be assessed.

So, Mohamed, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm correct in actually saying that.

Thank you, Chair.

Muhammad Rahman - 1:03:04

I just want to clarify, for the parking, as for Pakistan, it's not a policy requirement

as you're reading to.

It's a starting point as a guidance.

You know, there's no requirement for it to be applied in this high system location.

As mentioned in the slides, the policy does require reduced parking or comms free.

Can I interrupt you there?

We are not in a highly sustainable area.

We are in a moderate connectivity area.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:03:35

Although we are near to a station, I think that needs to be clarified.

Thank you, Chair. I am interested in my professional view here in terms of planning. This would

Muhammad Rahman - 1:03:54

be a highly sustainable location because it's 145 metres away. There's a good bus service

I would say it's a sustainable location.

The policy requires us to promote sustainable transport choices.

You start off by doing that by design.

You design developments with reduced parking in sustainable locations.

It does influence change in behaviour.

if residents, you know, particularly the one -bed units

that don't have allocated parking,

if there's not on -site parking,

they're most likely to,

and there's good public transport,

they're most likely to,

should we use that behaviour?

Excuse me, I think you've made your point,

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:04:47

it was also in your situation there.

But there's also another thing

that comes under Essex Parking Standards

and under the new NPPF,

and that is looking at the existing availability of cars in the locality.

And if you look at the ONS 2021 statistics, it shows that in for this postcode,

specifically this postcode, IG10 3RP, 82 .9 % of households had one or more cars or vans.

and that is quite important when we are looking about existing situation.

Can I ask you to say about the other point that Councillor Brahe made which was about trees?

Muhammad Rahman - 1:05:49

Yes, in terms of trees, as mentioned in Commission 6 and 8 does require the new landscape details,

trees to be planted, retained and so forth.

So that's perfectly reasonable.

In terms of distance as well to the front units is 15 metres.

Sorry, can you repeat that? How many metres?

15 metres from the front elevation to the existing buildings front opposite.

but I would say there is no policy requirement in terms of set distances. It does come down

to planning judgement. We are susceptible to not getting given the density, character of

the area. Yeah, thanks, Chair. Hope that answered your question.

Before I come back to Councillor Brahe, can I ask on your, the trees, on your landscape

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:06:42

plan, if you didn't mind putting that up on the screen so that we can look at that.

There are some trees that are marked X, which I presume are the ones that have been felled.

Are there any others on that plan to your knowledge are being removed within the site

plan?

That's the first question.

I'm not sure, but the first details of condition eight seeks to confirm and have approved.

Muhammad Rahman - 1:07:18

And the second one is relating to route protection zones.

Can you leave that up please, that landscape plan up please.

Can you put that back up again

because I want to refer to that, thank you.

Now, if you look at where the TFL trees are,

just outside the red line,

and it shows root protection areas,

they tend to overlap in some places

where there's either foundations or similar,

and in some cases actual building.

Am I correct in saying that?

Because you have got something in the conditions

and the tree people were not happy

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:08:05

that they had had a response about the tree plan,

but your proposed landscape plan clearly shows,

from my perspective and my understanding,

that the tree protection zone goes into the areas

where there's either foundations or hard surfacing?

In terms of foundation, I can't confirm that at this stage.

Muhammad Rahman - 1:08:28

This is not a foundation plan.

This is the ground floor.

Those details would come forward, post concept.

We do get foundation details.

That's post condition, you dive into the actual details,

sections, how much it goes into the ground,

if it's within the group protection area.

So that is what condition six may seek to

finalise and confirm what's concerned.

Thank you.

Councillor Shaw.

Sorry, Councillor Brouwer, did you want to come back?

You'll find that.

Cllr Geoff Shaw - 1:09:01

On the same point, Councillor Morgan.

Your microphone, please.

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:09:17

Didn't seem to answer the question that Councillor Baja asked about the plans and the trees

that were removed and why the plans haven't been altered accordingly. I'd like that answered

if possible before we move on.

Councillor Shaw.

Cllr Geoff Shaw - 1:09:34

Sorry, thank you, Chairman. I think looking at the plan here, yes, there is a tree just

in front of Unit 2, and Unit 2 foundations clearly go into the root protection area there.

But the question I've really got to ask is the validation requirements for planning applications

require that you produce a biodiversity net gain of 10 per cent.

So clearly that doesn't appear to have been done, and clearly the scheme doesn't provide

a biodiversity net gain of 10 % as required by Natural England.

Can I ask a question?

Yes, please.

Muhammad Rahman - 1:10:18

Given the application from 2020, this application is exempt from BHU regulations.

Why?

Cllr Geoff Shaw - 1:10:32

Sorry, you said that this was just been prepared in 2025 by the local architects.

The revisions were made to the past in 2025.

So this scheme is a 2025 scheme?

It was validated in 2020.

No, this scheme wasn't in 2020.

The scheme in 2020 was semi -detached houses.

This is a scheme of 2025.

So you can't just change the rules to suit yourself, can you?

Thank you. Excuse me, just a minute, please. Our legal representative would like to come

in on that.

Just to say the application, if it was submitted before the BNG regulations came into effect,

then even if it was amended after that date, it wouldn't be caught by the BNG requirements.

And that goes for any applicant.

Thank you for that.

Councillor Lucas.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:11:31

Thank you, Chairman. Obviously there is a lot of debate going on here and I would actually

like to make a proposal maybe a bit premature, but I fully support the strong need for 16

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:11:39

affordable homes and I think they are strongly supported across the Chamber, but this application,

despite being an old application, is premature to us as a committee and it must be deferred

for the following reasons. I believe that it has got unresolved financial viability.

So can you say that again?

Your leader's got...

Unresolved financial viability.

How do we even know that the 16 affordable homes

is financially viable for this council to provide?

It's severe overdevelopment.

The scale, density and design are wholly inappropriate

and out of keeping with the street scene

and is still clearly a work in progress.

The tree removal and biodiversity failure,

okay, it may not be a legal requirement,

but us as a council should be leading by example

and that should be absolutely considered.

I believe that there are still some floor drainage strategies and they appear quite

old in the plans.

Obviously, it has been mentioned multiple times on the insufficient parking, again,

might be policy compliant but is not a good example that this council should be leading.

I would just like to conclude that affordable housing, yes, it is a strong need but it must

not come at the cost of environmental destruction, poor design and broken infrastructure.

and I strongly recommend that we defer this application

until the application submits revised designs,

a valid biodiversity plan and finalised viability data.

I'm very happy to second that, Madam Chair.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:13:10

Before we do that, Kelly.

Just on the point about variability,

Kelly Sweeney - 1:13:16

this is a 100 % affordable housing development.

we only require a test viability

if it's a non -policy compliance scheme.

So if an applicant is proposing say 10 %

instead of the policy compliant 40%,

then we would require it to be tested

as part of a viability exercise.

Can you come back?

I understand all of these needs for legality,

Cllr Jamie Braha - 1:13:44

but I think as a council,

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:13:46

we should be ensuring that us as a committee

are confident that it is going to be a viable scheme

before we're approving it.

There are many other applications

that we've got put forward by our council.

And I know this is just considering this application

and but that isn't my only reason

for recommending the deferral.

I understand that.

And one of the viability questions

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:14:08

that we asked at the pre -meeting was,

why can't there be lifts to all the flats?

And it was apparently not economically viable,

but we are still doing passive housing and I think that the paths should be linked

with, can it be linked with viability situation because we are also paying, if I look back

and see what was said, we are paying some $48 ,000 for green infrastructure.

that.

If I can just come in on that. And obviously I hear members, the recommendation

or proposal being put forward to defer, just on the viability basis that the committee

is determining whether this scheme is acceptable in planning terms. It's not looking

at it whether the finances stack up for the council as a corporate entity. That is a separate

decision -making function. So my recommendation is if you're not to defer on that basis,

but would be to look at other bases.

So can I come back then to Councillor Lucas.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:15:14

So if, for example, we don't defer it on reasons of viability,

you still want it to be out of character, is that correct,

and parking, and what about amenity for existing residents and new residents?

Does those cover them?

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:15:39

I think all of my original reasons stand.

I'm happy to withdraw the viability part

of my recommendation for deferral.

Just to re -carify, it was to reconsider

the scale, density, and design being highly -

Sorry, say it again, a bit slower.

Sorry.

Reconsider the scale, density, and design.

Scale, density, and design.

Consideration on the biodiversity net gain,

despite it not being a legal requirement or policy compliant.

So reconsider BNG despite not being required.

Yeah, same for the parking.

So the parking to consider what a survey of existing stress.

Yeah, I just think they need to be reconsidered.

If it's genuinely believed to be appropriate of parking provision...

So you're saying reconsider parking provision due to...

...lonely stress, etc.

And what was your other one? And then I come to several people.

Well, I mentioned the drainage strategy, but I mean I was...

I don't know if the... I didn't get the opportunity to ask a question on that.

I just felt that we got to the stage where I would be recommending this to be deferred

for much further consideration before I ask further questions.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:17:11

Well, some of the policies that come up as well, parking would be under a separate policy.

The scale density and design would be to do with character, but you've also got amenity

in the same policy.

So you've got amenity of existing neighbours and amenity of new neighbours, so that would

to do with the outside space, parking, et cetera, as well.

Is that what you were thinking?

Exactly that, Chairman, and hopefully that would be enough reasons

for us to defer this award.

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:17:38

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:17:43

So we're talking about immunity for existing and new residents.

And I know that, I'm coming back to the community,

because I know a lot of people want to actually add things,

that Will Kaufman had asked to include something, if that's still relevant.

Thank you, Chair.

And one thing I was just going to suggest, just on the basis of what Councillor

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:18:05

Braha was suggesting, I mean, I literally took a picture earlier of the site.

So if they wanted to look at it, obviously I'd need to share amongst everyone,

and I can't do that.

Unless they...

I think we can't easily do that.

I don't know.

But I understand from Mohamed that the site pictures he took was how many years ago?

Muhammad Rahman - 1:18:33

Before, I think Higgins are currently using it as a temporary construction, but that's

not relevant to the planning application.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:18:45

The next point was if we were told earlier that viability, the other scheme, wasn't viable,

pursuing this line of viability, I think there does need to be some...

Could that not be in the design?

In the design.

Yeah. Right. Councillor Brouwer.

I was going to pretty much say what Councillor Kaufman said, but I respect your comments,

Cllr Jamie Braha - 1:19:09

Liguet. But if we're sending it back as deferring it, the viability of the site being viable

is an important part of the scheme, we don't want to come back to it.

Well, we own it, let's face it.

Remember, that scheme, I can tell you, is not a viable scheme to build.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:19:32

There are some other ones who come under the conditions because you can't actually park the construction vehicles on the site.

Most of the site is going to be hard -standing.

Councillor McIvern, then I'll come to Councillor Cohen.

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:19:45

Thank you Madam Chairman, I'm very happy to second the proposal to deferral but the point I would just like to add to what Councillor Lucas has said is the design that in particular, I think it's definitely over development blah blah blah, but I actually think the actual design is so, I mean it's literally like sticking Belmarsh next to the central line, opposite a load of homes, it's totally out keeping so I think the actual design in its fascia needs to be removed.

reviewed immediately.

We're looking at the architectural design

not being in keeping.

Architectural design not being in keeping.

I would also add that similar to the point

of Councillor Murray, which is that the type

of development here is totally out of keeping

with what is in that area.

And therefore a recommendation, not this is

for the deferral, but a recommendation I would have,

because we all want to see something work,

is they basically need to mirror what's on the other side

of the road.

Yeah.

That would be the common sense solution.

Or next to it, which is important keeping.

So can I, I can come to you in a minute, Councillor Murray,

but can I just actually clarify then,

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:20:51

you'll be looking at out of character

in view of the architectural design and materials

being more contemporary with not fitting,

but it's only a small site with its immediate surroundings.

And Councillor Cohen wanted to add, can we still thinking about reasons we want it deferred?

So I actually agree with what Councillor Makhay -Bour.

Cllr Barbara Cohen - 1:21:19

My points were the design of the building.

So I have four points that I don't like about, well, five.

I mean, nobody likes the parking, but four new points that I would like to bring to this.

And one is the sawtooth roof.

Sorry.

the sawtooth roof, the roof design.

So that would be covered in deferring

because we don't like the design.

We don't like the design because it's...

We don't get seats in keeping rooms.

Because it's originally a three,

it's now a three -storey building amongst two -storey buildings.

And with the sawtooth roof,

we can then add another floor to these buildings

and it will be a four -storey building quite easily

because there's potential for that.

Also, the slit windows, they look absolutely ridiculous.

It looks like somebody's taken out the bricks of a window

and put in some more bricks and some slits

for no reason at all.

So again, it's out of character design.

It's out of character and also very ugly.

Also, the gardens for the flats for the house

and the balconies of the flats overlook the railway line.

Why are they put that side of the buildings

and not the other side, which would be a lot nicer

for everybody?

I'm sure that Omo is taking notes of this as well.

But so we're talking about the whole design.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:22:53

The whole design, it's just ugly, it's ugly.

And we're talking about the immunity for new residents,

which would be very close to the railway with the vibrations and the noise, et cetera.

And the outdoor space is facing the...

And the outdoor space...

Cllr Barbara Cohen - 1:23:11

They could have had the outdoor space the other side of the buildings.

Okay.

And it would be a lot more pleasant for the building.

Um, Councillor Whiskin and Councillor Shaw.

And then I'll come to Councillor Murray once.

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:23:23

I'm sorry.

I do apologise.

on the committee.

Would you like to put your microphone on, Councillor Morgan?

Yes, it would be quite nice to be able to speak.

I can put my hand up as soon as we have this open to the committee.

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:23:45

So can I go now or would you like to go to the other people?

I would ask Councillor Morgan if you would like to speak.

Yes, I would.

I totally agree with all the points that have been said.

As a council, we need to lead by example, and we are definitely not leading by example

on this.

We said that it is near a train station and sufficient bus routes, they are not sufficient

at bus routes, it is not sufficient at transport links at all.

It is totally insufficient.

I actually live near, very close, within a couple of hundred yards of a bus stop and

train station, it doesn't mean that people use it.

They don't use it at all.

We definitely need a power -up in survey.

That is one of our top priorities.

We have heard from residents about how bad it is.

I deliver down that road and it is awful.

What is going to happen with the 40 -odd residents

having deliveries every day?

There is no parking. We should have parking.

This is ridiculous to say people are not going to use their cars.

We have heard from Councillor Murray to say,

what happens when you can't visit your nan

or great aunt or something longer?

So how do you want to add to what we want to defer?

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:24:52

I want to add that we need a parking survey for definite.

Yes, we've got that.

The fact that as a council we need to lead by example,

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:25:00

it's really, as we've heard, it's a really poor design.

These are three -storey houses that are not in keeping

with anything else in the area at all.

The overlooking is overdevelopment of the site.

And I'd like to say it would be really nice

if the planning officers go and have a look at the site

to site beforehand, because I went there Saturday

and I actually had to go back there again today

because I thought I'd got the wrong site.

Because I never think, it's that there's hoarding all round,

there's no hoarding there.

It's full of the Morgan's single building materials

waiting to go.

And it's nothing like what we've just seen here.

So we need to look at that.

And we need definitely the biodiversity impact

that gain in there as well.

Yes, we've got that one.

Yeah, we've got, I think we already had that one.

Everything else has already been said,

We need to lead by example on this.

We are going to be voting on deferring it.

I definitely agree with Michael O 'Hancer here.

We definitely need to defer this and look at it sensibly.

We are looking at voting for that very shortly.

Councillor Murray, do you want to come in quickly on that?

Yes, I am, Chairman.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:26:07

Cllr Stephen Murray - 1:26:10

I want to ask a question because I want to...

The committee is clearly unhappy with this application.

The reason why they, I might be wrong, but the reason why they appear to want to defer

it rather than say no is because they are worried about the impact about our status

as regards a planning situation.

But surely that only becomes an issue if the other arm of EFDC were to appeal.

And I would argue that's extremely unlikely.

So I personally feel, and it's obviously up for the committee to decide, but I actually

I actually feel you have had enough grounds to say no and reject it, knowing that you

are fairly secure that housing services are not going to appeal, because they will have

heard your message.

And I think the stronger message to give tonight, and there is all the evidence, all the evidence

that you have collated around deferral, is evidence to say no.

And the only reason you appeared, unless I have missed something, to defer it is because

of this picture over the possibility of losing an appeal.

Are EFDC really going to go to appeal?

Okay, we can't be 100 per cent certain, but I'm probably 99 per cent certain, so they wouldn't.

So I personally feel the committee should be saying no rather than deferring.

Thank you.

I'll come back to Councillor McIver, who first suggested that, and then Councillor Lucas,

and then we'll go on with the debate.

Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:27:42

Sorry, Councillor McPherson.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:27:49

Can I just please ask the officers, my understanding was that the councils, because I also think

by the way it would be a bit unfair to other applicants who would never get a fair hearing

like this, we would literally just chop this immediately and we would say, vote it down.

So I think it's a very, also a very valid point and it's also been raised in that sense.

Can I just ask the officers, what is the council being judged on?

Because I was under the impression from the portfolio hold of the planning who tried to

down that every time an application does not go forward,

the council is penalised for that.

So can I please ask what is the council being judged on?

Because that would make me determine whether or not

council is -

I will answer that from one perspective.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:28:26

We are in section 62A because our refusal reasons

were overturned at appeal for the majors, right?

So what we need to do is make sure all decisions

are defensible.

And if they are defensible, then we should have no concerns.

So then I would be minded as a committee to refuse the application with the reasons we've

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:28:48

given in that respect.

Thank you.

Councillor Lucas, what is your feelings following that?

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:28:55

My stance is actually still to defer the application.

As I started my comment with, I'm in support of some development on this site and as I

I have done previously, I've sat here and recommended other applications

for deferral on those reasons that actually in principle have no issues with the

development on this side. I just had those reasons to defer for reconsideration.

That being said, I'm happy for it to go to a vote however you wish to move forward.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:29:30

What I'm going to ask then is if we decide to refuse it, it will be on the plans

that they are at the moment, that is 16, with some of the suggestions that we had for

deferral as refusal reasons, if we went to deferring it, that would be on what basis?

Because I think you initially started it, you were in favour of the 16 on that side,

and my feeling is that some of the committee thinks that's overdevelopment.

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 1:30:08

I didn't mention numbers, Chairman. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. Can I have a show of

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:30:13

hands, please, on whether this committee is in favour of developing this site for affordable?

I want to just find out if people, first of all, are in favour of having an affordable

development on this site. This is not the same as actually going forward with this recommendation.

Previously we had six approved on this site.

My feeling is that people are still in favour of some development on this site.

Is that agreed?

So we can move forward then.

You are happy with that?

Yes.

We are happy with that.

Right, so can I please have a show of hands for,

I think there are going to be two votes.

One is for deferment and the second one will be for refusal.

Is that acceptable?

I think Councillor Lucas may have put forward a motion,

but I think just for formality sake,

if a motion could be moved.

For seconding, I deferment then please.

Second.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:31:34

You've got a question.

So does Councillor Morgan.

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:31:43

Can I just ask, what's this in the local plan originally

before the application in 2016,

what's it in the local plan between then and now?

I suspect.

Chair, if I may answer, Chair?

Yeah.

Kelly Sweeney - 1:31:58

It's not an allocated site,

Muhammad Rahman - 1:32:01

it is one of the Council's garage sites

that we've been developing across a number of years.

But not in the national allocated site for in the local plan?

That's correct, yes.

Thank you.

What did you say it was?

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:32:16

Councillor Whiskin, you wanted to ask a question before we decide whether we want to defer

or refuse?

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 1:32:19

No, I haven't been given the opportunity to say anything which I'd like to.

I think we need to get practical and the reality of this, the parking is a massive issue and

I don't care what the officers say and I don't care what the policies are.

need to be in line with reality. Secondly, the building new developments, which I think

are ugly and overbearing and overdevelopment, outweighing the damage to the locals who currently

live there, is totally unacceptable. It is not a route of direction of travel this Council

should possibly be considered.

Okay. Councillor Shaw.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:33:03

Cllr Geoff Shaw - 1:33:05

Reinforcing what everybody's been saying here, a planning officer mentioned the National

Planning Framework, but he failed to mention paragraph L – let me put my glasses on – L2,

which refers to sites being consistent with the overall street scene.

And where it's appropriate to have larger buildings, which clearly this is,

the additional units, the additional height of units may be appropriate on street corners,

but not as this is in the middle of the street.

So it's definitely out of keeping with the overall street scene, which is under paragraph

L of the national policy framework.

It also says in the policy framework that the developments should maintain safe access

and egress for the occupiers and users, acceptable living standards for residents and neighbours

in terms of the access to daylight, sunlight, privacy and external amenity space.

I do believe that this development fails totally in providing adequate amenity space for the

properties.

If you look at the gardens at the back, I think it is about two metres from this communal

walkway looking straight into the lounges and kitchens of these ground floor apartments.

Totally unacceptable and clearly it doesn't apply to that.

Also, when we look at these three storey buildings, and it's been mentioned by the local residents,

it's only 15 metres from the windows of the houses opposite.

Now I would question whether they've done a right of light calculation on those three,

four storey flats there.

But clearly it doesn't meet the back -to -back distance required.

Thank you.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:35:07

Councillor McIver, would you think it, would you prefer to actually do a motion to refuse

now and then if that fails we go to defer?

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:35:19

Yes, Madam Chair, I'm not happy to propose refusal of the application.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:35:24

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:35:29

On the grounds of the scale, the density and the design and the architecture are out of keeping.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:35:34

The parking is inadequate to reconsider the BNG despite not being a requirement

and also in the parking to require a survey of stress.

and lack of amenities for existing and new residents.

Is that?

Yes, did you mention the architectural design?

I did, under the scale design design design

and the architectural design not being in keeping.

Yeah.

Whether we want to also say overdevelopment of the site.

Yeah, I think overdevelopment and also, Madam Chairman,

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:36:14

I believe there is, I think the matter to do with the trees is significant and I think

should be an additional item.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:36:32

Okay, so on trees, I'm sorry that we're doing this.

Councillor Brougha, sorry, Councillor Morgan, are you going to second this or are you going

to add to this?

I'd like to put in the agenda special,

to see what happens.

So, Council Braha, you wanted to add to the objections.

Cllr Jamie Braha - 1:36:50

Yeah, I think the quantum of development

should also be looked at.

So, the development of the quantum.

The development on this site,

even though it is close to a station and densities,

it is over development.

And because you raised the trees,

can you think of a reason on the trees?

Well, if we're going back to design,

you're gonna be reconsidering it.

So it's kind of, I think, you know, that would work.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:37:16

We could say lack of, lack of victories in the landscape.

Thank you, Chair.

And just in terms of these potential reasons for refusal,

Kelly Sweeney - 1:37:30

obviously there's a lot of issues being mentioned

around sort of overdevelopment.

So you've talked about quantum of development,

You've talked about the scale, the bulk, the massing.

Obviously, those things could actually encompass one reason for refusal,

so overdevelopment.

And then, obviously, you're talking about parking as a separate reason for refusal,

ecology, and then amenity would be another separate sort of reason.

So we're looking probably at DM -9 and T1 part E, I think.

I don't know.

Madam Chair, if I may, I'm not really wishing to condense the reasons, because

I think that -

Sorry?

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:38:23

I'm not particularly looking to condense the reasons.

I think that the part of the importance of this refusal is there is a list of very

different reasons.

It is a significantly bad scheme, so I wouldn't want to see those items mushed as one.

I think the design issue and the architectural design

is very separate to the overdevelopment

because you can overdevelop with a nice design.

This is a bad design and overdevelopment.

I completely agree.

I think detailed design is separate from bulk

and massing and overdevelopment.

Kelly Sweeney - 1:38:53

I'm just, I'm not trying to water any of the potential

reasons for refusal down at all.

And obviously we can use some of the things

that members have raised to describe the issues.

It's just ensuring that we don't have an endless list

of we don't have 10, 20 reasons for refusal, they can be put in separate kind of categories,

if you like.

But we do have lots of issues that we have raised.

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 1:39:23

Before you say anything, can I just, Mohamed wants to come in on something here.

Mohamed.

Thank you, Chair. I was just going to say, you know, there would be, you would have the

Muhammad Rahman - 1:39:31

headings as the reason for refusal which would encompass all the issues members have raised.

That's just normal practise.

So design with the compass, all the design issues,

arching, imaging and neighbouring amenity.

So you'd have essentially four reasons for refusals

in conferencing all the issues members have raised tonight.

It wouldn't be missed out within those reasons.

It's just normal practise to have the key headings

tied from together.

So it would be four reasons for refusals

members are putting forward the recommendation to refuse.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:40:08

So out of character, overdevelopment, out of character, inappropriate design for locality,

parking, did you... the second one?

Muhammad Rahman - 1:40:21

So the four reasons would be design, encompassing overdevelopment, design, architecture, massing,

and so forth. So reason for a 301 would be design. Second reason would be inadequate

parking provision. Third reason would be ecological impacts.

Sorry, third reason is?

Ecological impacts.

And the fourth reason would be the available amenity space for future residents.

And an existing one, because it's not just amenity space. We're talking about overlooking

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:40:53

and overshadowing, which I think comes under amenity.

Yeah, so that would be a fifth reason then. So four would be the amenity space for

Muhammad Rahman - 1:41:00

for future residents, and the fifth reason would be the impact of neighbouring MNTs for

existing users in terms of overlooking and so forth. So there'll be five reasons for

refusals. And there'll be an informative to re -have

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:41:17

it for BNG? Not a reason for refusal, no.

Muhammad Rahman - 1:41:22

No, so it can't be that, but it can be an informative to EFDCs.

EFDCs...

You normally put BNG requirements as an informative...

Yeah, so we have it as an informative that we would like that to be looked at again.

Well, if you're refusing it, you have to put it down as a formal reason for refusal against local plan policies.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:41:41

There is a biodiversity policy in our local plan.

I think that the case obviously might have been suggested to deal with that as the ecological reason for the...

Okay, ecological, yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that.

So, sorry.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:41:54

Should we vote on whether it should be approved first before we get to our...

Yes, you're done.

Right, Councillor McIvor.

So, just related to what Mohamed just said,

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:42:04

I still don't believe that overdevelopment and design is the same thing.

I think that is two separate points.

So, I think that's six reasons.

So, I think overdevelopment is very separate to the design.

So, Mohamed, is that right?

Because to be, sorry if I can, to be frank,

if the smaller scale development came,

the ugly design, we might be reminded to accept it.

I agree with you.

I think yes, that should be six.

And Councillor Shaw.

Is the architectural scale,

Cllr Geoff Shaw - 1:42:37

mass and scale of the architectural development

is out of keeping with the street scene?

It's the mass and scale of that development.

Which one does that come under?

So that's the, that is the, and then the overdevelopment is surely density.

Well, that would be density.

So you've got the density of the development.

And the design.

And the design is the mass and scale of that design is not in keeping with the street

scene.

I would care with that then.

Kelly Sweeney - 1:43:07

We can, I mean, there can be a little bit of overlap, I would say, between the detail,

the design and, and the actual sort of overdevelopment elements.

I think you could cover what you're suggesting

across both, but as long as it's covered, yeah.

Thank you.

First of all, I think I'm going to put the motion

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:43:28

as we've been asked to look at this evening,

which is to approve with conditions,

EPF 2020 garage site at Ladyfields.

All those in favour of approving it? No one.

None.

Thank you. Secondly, I have a proposal for refusal with six reasons, is it now?

That's correct, Chair.

Who is against approval? I beg your pardon.

All chair.

Thank you. Now we can get on to a second motion which is to refuse on the six grounds that we have now talked about.

And we have a proposer as Councillor McIver, and we have a seconder as Councillor

Morgan.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:44:40

All those in favour of refusal for those six reasons?

All.

Chairman.

And again, this was a known point in time.

Thank you very much for your time.

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:44:54

Next item on the agenda has been withdrawn.

9 EPF/0419/26 - Glenholme Nursery, Nursery Road, Nazeing, Waltham Abbey, EN9 2JF

And we now come to item 10, any other business?

Councillor Cowther.

Cllr Will Kauffman - 1:45:17

May I be very cheeky and suggest that the council might want to write to the person

that's on the Ladyfield site recommending they turn off that diesel generator?

I don't think that's something that comes to AOB.

You need to do that outside this meeting.

Enforcement though.

I'm not wishing to prolong this meeting, Madam Chairman, but I would just like to mention

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 1:45:36

and so it's minuted that Epping Forest District Council, whoever is responsible for bringing

in these schemes to this committee should really look

and watch this meeting back and study why

the council's own planning committee

has just quite badly refused a very bad scheme.

We should be setting examples,

especially as this council is in special measures.

How can we expect private developers

to bring forward adequate schemes

when our own council can't do it?

So I really would like it to be minuted

that the council should review and reflect

on its own application and make sure they do a better job

set a better example.

That is noted. Thank you, Councillor McIver. And I think most people share that sentiment

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:46:18

with you. If there's no other business, I declare this meeting closed at 8 .46, is it?

Thank you.

Louis Beardmore

Democratic Services Apprentice

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Cllr Jamie Braha

District councillor for Grange Hill ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Barbara Cohen

District councillor for Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge ward

Loughton Residents Association

View profile

Cllr Mary Dadd

District councillor for Ongar ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Will Kauffman

District councillor for Loughton Fairmead ward

Loughton Residents Association

View profile

Cllr Jodie Lucas

District councillor for Waltham Abbey West ward

Conservative Party

View profile

Cllr Jaymey McIvor

District councillor for Ongar ward

Reform UK

View profile

Cllr Lisa Morgan

District councillor for Grange Hill ward

Epping Forest Independents Group

View profile

Cllr Stephen Murray

District councillor for Loughton Roding ward

Independent

View profile

Cllr Chidi Nweke

District councillor for Loughton Roding ward

Loughton Residents Association

View profile

Cllr Sheree Rackham

District councillor for Loughton Roding ward

Loughton Residents Association

View profile

Muhammad Rahman

Senior Planning Officer

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Cllr Geoff Shaw

District councillor for Theydon Bois with Passingford ward

Reform UK

View profile

Public Speaker

View profile

Kelly Sweeney

Principal Planning Officer

Epping Forest District Council

View profile

Cllr Graham Wiskin

District councillor for Loughton St John's ward

Loughton Residents Association

View profile

Interactive webcast player

Planning Committee BWednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 7:00pm

1 WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:00:00

2 ADVICE FOR PUBLIC & SPEAKERS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES

3 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Louis Beardmore - 0:02:11

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:02:14

Louis Beardmore - 0:02:17

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:02:23

6 MINUTES

7 EPF/0602/26 - 70 High Road, Buckhurst Hill, IG9 5RW

Kelly Sweeney - 0:04:21

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:06:44

Public Speaker - 0:06:54

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:09:45

Public Speaker - 0:09:54

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:12:16

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:12:36

Kelly Sweeney - 0:12:51

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:13:11

Kelly Sweeney - 0:13:16

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:13:18

Kelly Sweeney - 0:13:39

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:14:09

Kelly Sweeney - 0:14:21

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:14:28

Kelly Sweeney - 0:14:38

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:15:05

Kelly Sweeney - 0:15:18

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:15:38

Kelly Sweeney - 0:16:07

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:16:29

Kelly Sweeney - 0:16:52

Cllr Lisa Morgan - 0:17:40

Kelly Sweeney - 0:17:57

Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:18:10

Kelly Sweeney - 0:18:17

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:18:47

Cllr Geoff Shaw - 0:18:48

Kelly Sweeney - 0:19:05

Cllr Graham Wiskin - 0:19:15

Kelly Sweeney - 0:19:31

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:19:50

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:19:59

Kelly Sweeney - 0:20:30

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:21:02

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:21:50

8 EPF/2020/20 - Garage Site at Ladyfields, Loughton, IG10 3RP

Muhammad Rahman - 0:23:06

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:32:07

Public Speaker - 0:32:35

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:35:31

Public Speaker - 0:36:12

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:37:59

Cllr Stephen Murray - 0:38:15

Cllr Sheree Rackham - 0:38:31

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:41:40

Cllr Sheree Rackham - 0:41:57

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:42:16

Cllr Chidi Nweke - 0:42:27

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:46:03

Cllr Stephen Murray - 0:46:06

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:50:43

Cllr Will Kauffman - 0:50:47

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:54:34

Cllr Jodie Lucas - 0:54:53

Kelly Sweeney - 0:55:10

Muhammad Rahman - 0:55:19

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 0:56:17

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:57:14

Kelly Sweeney - 0:57:22

Cllr Jaymey McIvor - 0:57:48

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:58:19

Kelly Sweeney - 0:58:28

Public Speaker - 0:58:57

Cllr Mary Dadd - 0:59:02

Cllr Jamie Braha - 0:59:09

Cllr Mary Dadd - 1:00:16

Muhammad Rahman - 1:03:04

Planning Committee B
Wednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 7:00pm