committee agenda Epping Forest Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' District Council 4 June 2003
Place: Shelley County Primary School, Milton Crescent, Ongar
Room: Community Room
Time: 7 .30 p.m.
Democratic Services S G Hill (Tel : 01992 564249) Officer: Email:[email protected]
Members: R Morgan (Chairman), K Wright (Vice-Chairman), Mrs D Collins, J Harrington, P Gode, D Jacobs, D Kelly, Mrs M McEwen "
Please note: A briefing for the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and appointed spokespersons will be held in the Community Room at the School at 6.30 p.m. on the day of the Sub-Committee
A plan showing the location of Shelley County Primary School Is attached to this agenda
" 1 . MINUTES
. . . 1 .1 To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 16 April 2003 (attached at Appendix 1) .
2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3 .1 (Chief Executive) To declare interests in any item on the agenda .
4. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
4.1 Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 25 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution requires that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted . . Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' 4 June 2003
4.2 In accordance with Operational Standing Order 6 (non-executive bodies), any item raised by a non-member shall require the support of a member of the Committee concerned and the Chairman of that Committee. Two weeks' notice of non-urgent items is required.
5. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
5 .1 (Head of Planning Services) To consider planning applications as set out in the attached schedule (Appendix 2).
Background papers : (i) Applications for determination - applications listed on the schedule, letters of representation received regarding the applications, which are summarised on the schedule. (ii) Enforcement of Planning Control - the reports of officers inspecting the properties listed on the schedule in respect of which consideration is to be given to the enforcement of planning control.
6. PROBITY IN PLANNING -APPEAL DECISIONS, OCTOBER 2002 TO MARCH 2003
Recommendation :
That the outcomes of recent appeals be noted.
Background
6.1 (Head of Planning Services) In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor of November 2000, this report advises the decision-making committee of the results of all successful appeals, particularly those refused by committee contrary to officer recommendation . The purpose is to inform the committee of the consequences of their decisions in this respect and, in cases where the refusal is found to be unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs may be made against the Council.
6.2 To set the context, a Best Value Performance Indicator was for district councils to aim to have less than 40% of their decisions overturned on appeal with the national average of about 33%. In fact in recent years the Council has been more successful with only 31% overturned in 1999/00, 25% in 2000/01 and 24% in 2001/02.
Performance
6.3 Over the six month period October 2002 to March 2003, the Council received 62 decisions on appeals - 53 planning appeals and 9 enforcement appeals . Of the 53 planning appeals 10 were allowed (19%) and of the 9 enforcement appeals 4 were allowed (44%) - a combined total of 23% of the Council's decisions overturned. (The total for the year 2002/03 was 27%.)
Planning Appeals
6.4 Of those 10 planning appeals allowed, 2 were allowed following decisions to refuse by committee contrary to officer's recommendation. Those 2 were: Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' 4 June 2003
EPF/1686/01 - Residential redevelopment of Sunnymede Garage, Lamboume Road, Chigwell (Area Committee A 10/04/02)
A/EPF/1249/02 - Non-illuminated freestanding sign at Sainsbury's Distribution Centre, Waltham Point (Area Committee D 23/10/02)
6.5 To complete the picture, officers were successful in sustaining committee decisions to refuse, when officers had recommended granting permission to the committee in 4 cases - nos.18, 23, 34 and 37 on the attached list.
Costs
6.6 One full award and one partial award of costs were made against the Council during this period. The full award related to Norton Field Farm where the Inspector was satisfied from evidence submitted at the Inquiry that a viable unit was being established justifying the retention of the mobile home, a barn and gates. He concluded that the Council had acted unreasonably in refusing permission and taking enforcement action despite the Council's position that the viability had not been proven before the Inquiry and that the barn and gates were visually intrusive whether or not they were necessary for the business.
6.7 The partial award related to 147/147A Queens Road, where although the appeal,was dismissed, the Inspector considered it unreasonable that the Council introduced arguments at the appeal that did not form part of the reasons for refusal.
6.8 It is, however, worth noting that the Council has been awarded costs in 2 cases of ~ late withdrawal of enforcement appeals, after the Council had spent considerable . time and resources preparing its cases. ,
Conclusions
6.9 The Council's performance at appeal has been outstanding, exceeding the BVPI and the national average. The awards of costs were disappointing.
6.10 The decisions are listed in the Members Bulletin week by week but a full list of decisions over this six month period appears at appendix 3.
7. DELEGATED DECISIONS
7.1 (Chief Executive) Schedules of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning Services under delegated powers since the last meeting of a Plans Sub-Committee may be inspected in the Members' Room or at Planning Services.
8. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
8.1 To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act indicated: Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' 4 June 2003
Agenda Exempt Information Item No. Subiect Paraaraah Number
Nil Nil
8.2 To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items which are confidential under Section 100(A)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972:
Agenda Item No. Subiect
Nil Nil I
APPENDIX 1
EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Committee: Area Plans Sub 'C' Date: 16 April 2003
Place: Shelley County Primary School, Ongar Time: 7.30 - 7.45 pm
Members Councillors R Morgan (Chairman), K Wright (Vice Chairman), R Barnes OBE, Present: Mrs D Collins, J Harrington, D Kelly, Mrs McEwen
Other Councillors:
Apologies: Councillor D Jacobs
Officers R Bintley (Planning Services), S Tautz (Performance Management Unit) Present:
72. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting, and outlined the procedures and arrangements agreed by the Council to enable persons to address the Sub-Committee in relation to the determination of applications for planning permission.
73. MINUTES
RESOLVED :
That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 19 March 2003, be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
74. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared by members of the Sub-Committee, pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct.
75. ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS
It was reported that there was no urgent business for consideration at the meeting .
76. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL -APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION
The Sub-Committee considered a schedule of planning applications .
RESOLVED:
That planning applications numbered 1-2 be determined as set out in the Appendix to these minutes. Area Plans Sub'C' 16 April 2003
77. FORMER ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAY DEPOT, EPPING ROAD, ONGAR- SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS
Members were reminded that, at its meeting held on 31 October 2001, the Sub-Committee had granted outline planning permission for the residential development of the former Highway Depot at Epping Road, Ongar, subject to the completion of agreements pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the provision of affordable housing and highwayworks at the site .
The Head of Planning Services reported that, owing to protracted negotiations, the agreements had not been completed within the twelve month period originally specified by the Sub-Committee and that the Head of Legal and Administration had therefore requested that an extension of time be granted to finalise the documentation . The Sub-Committee was advised that no objections had been raised to the proposed extension of time by any of the parties to the agreement. " RESOLVED:
That the deadline for the completion of Section 106 Agreements for the outline residential development of the former Essex County Council Highway Depot at Epping Road, Ongar, be extended until 30 September 2003.
78. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL - APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES
The Sub-Committee noted that schedules of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning Services under delegated authority since the last meeting, had been circulated and could be inspected at the Civic Offices.
79. LAST MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL YEAR
The Chairman thanked members and officers of the Sub-Committee fortheir assistance during the year. On behalf of the Sub-Committee, the Chairman paid particular tribute to the work of Councillor R Barnes OBE, who was not seeking re-election to the Council in May 2003, for his many years service as member for the Shelley Ward of the Epping Forest District.
CHAIRMAN AREA PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE `C' 16 APRIL 2003
1 . APPLICATION NO: EPF/2258/02 PARISH: ABBESS BEAUCHAMP AND BERNERS RODING
SITE ADDRESS :
Frayes, Frayes Chase, Beauchamp Roding
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Stable building and change of use of land for horse keeping (Revised application)
GRANTED SUBJECT TO:
1 . To be commenced within 5 years.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plans received on 10 March 2003.
3. Materials of construction to be agreed.
4. The stable building hereby permitted shall only be used for the private enjoyment of the occupants of 'Frayes, Frayes Chase' .
5. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed . surface materials for the access and courtyard shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed surface treatment shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development. ' .
6. Submission of a landscape scheme.
7. No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for,, a minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in;writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation . Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.
8. The stable building hereby approved shall at no time be used for commercial purposes or for residential use .
2. APPLICATION NO : EPF/2253/02 PARISH : HIGH ONGAR
SITE ADDRESS:
Mulberry House, Chelmsford Road, High Ongar
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Retain existing use but, in addition, permit use of the conference suite (hatched black) for functions and the dining room (cross-hatched black) as a restaurant. No increase in current maximum number of delegates (60).
REFUSED:
The proposal would result-in an intensification of the use of the substandard access to the detriment of highway safety contrary to policy T17 of the adopted Local Plan. APPENDIX 2
Plans Sub-Committee C -4 June 2003
Schedule of Applications to be considered at the meeting :
No. App No. Site Page 1 . EPF/15/03 Nine Ashes Farm, Rookery Road, 13-18 High Ongar 2. EPF/577/03 Wickets, 245 Nine Ashes Rd, High 19-21 Ongar 3 . EPF/253/03 Matching Green Cricket Club, 22-25 Matching Green 4. EPF/14/03 Oak Mead, Oensons Lane, 26-28 Greensted Green, Bobbingworth 5. EPF/92/03 Wood Farm, Moreton Road, 29-34 Moreton 6. A/EPF/128/03 Wood Farm, Moreton Road, 35-37 Moreton 7 . EPF/99/03 Albyns Farm, Stapleford Road, 38-41 Stapleford Abbotts 8. EPF/425/03 Bournebridge Garden Centre, Oak 42-46 Hill Road, Stapleford Abbotts I 9.~ EPF/534/03 Hill Hall, Mount Rd, Theydon Mount 47-52 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on : 04/06/2003 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPFI15/03 Report Item No: 1
SITE ADDRESS : PARISH : High Ongar NINE ASHES FARM, ROOKERY ROAD, HIGH ONGAR
APPLICANT: Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd Pension Fund
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Change of use to light industrial and storage and distribution (B1 c and 138) uses .
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Grant Permission
1 . Hours of work, deliveries and use of power generated machinery associated with the site shall be restricted to: 08 .00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday 08 .00 to 12.00 Saturday " No work shall be carried out on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
2 . The rating level of noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the background noise level, determined to be 44.0 dB (A) by more than 5dB (A) between the permitted hours of operation. The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises and measurements and assessments shall be in accordance with BS .4142:1997.
3 . The uses shall be confined to the buildings forming the subject of this application and shall not include any open storage, or industrial activity in the area around the buildings.
4. The buildings the subject of this permission shall only be used for uses within Classes B8 and B1 c of the Town & Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987.
~J Prior to occupation, the specific occupiers and uses shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority for approval .
6 . No external lighting shall be erected on site unless a scheme is firstly submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing prior to the installation .
In addition to the foregoing prior to the issue of the planning permission the applicants shall be required to enter into a satisfactory SECTION 106 AGREEMENT. The agreement which shall be signed within the next 12 months shall require: "A. Give way markings and "No entry" signs be provided at the egress points onto Rookery Road . B. "Slow" markings be provided on Rookery Road at the approaches to the site. C. All works within the limits of the highway be carried out to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority: Description of Proposal :
Change of use of two farm buildings to light industry and storage/distribution use . The buildings comprise a hay barn with floor area of 1,050 sq. metres; and ex-livestock building approximately 300 sq. metres in area .
Description of Site:
A range of Atcost type and brick built barns located on the eastern side of Rookery Road midway between the junction of King Street and Blackmore Road. It backs onto open countryside.
Relevant History:
Originally erected in 1960s and 1970s; these agricultural buildings have only been the subject of a single planning application in recent years . This was an application proposing an industrial and storage use of all the farm buildings on the site and was refused in March 2002 owing to the potential impact on the amenities of local residents.
Policies Applied :
GB8 relating to the reuse of existing buildings in the Green Belt. T17 relating to traffic implications ; DBE9 protection of the amenities of neighbours ; E12 small scale business.
Issues and Considerations :
The main issues relating to this proposal concern the possible impact on the amenities of the area; neighbouring residents, the potential for traffic generation and the suitability of the buildings for the intended use. In addition the differences between this application and that previously refused planning permission fall to be considered .
The applicants have recently undertaken a similar exercise of changing the use of surplus farm buildings at Paslow Hall Farm in King Street where a number of barns are being used for light industrial and storage uses. The buildings at Paslow Hall are similar in both size and construction as those which form the subject of this application. In the case of the current application the extent of the buildings which are the subject of the change of use has been reduced from that which was previously refused planning permission .
The applicants point out that the two buildings comprising the subject of the application are of permanent and substantial construction, the proposals comprise no physical alterations of substance except external cladding and that the buildings are considered to be in keeping with their surroundings by way of form, bulk and general design in that they are traditional farmbuildings. They also state that they would be willing to accept conditions restricting open storage and parking associated with the use of this site; and point out that the proposed change of use would ensure efficient use of existing buildings in the Green Belt and would create employment opportunities in the area . The applicants have also submitted I L+ a detailed transportation assessment to accompany the application which shows that the proposed change of use would not generate excessive traffic movement; be a road safety issue nor result in a loss of amenity to the locality.
The buildings which are the subject of this application are of permanent and substantial construction ; and their reuse can be carried out without major reconstruction . They are also located in a position where occupation for commercial use will not seriously impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. Indeed the opportunity will exist to enable the imposition of conditions or a planning permission which can ensure that the use will have less adverse impact on the immediate neighbours than an agricultural use which could not be controlled . Policy GB8 of the Local Plan also requires that a change of use would not result in traffic generation detrimental to the character and amenities of the countryside. In this respect the highway authority who have been consulted on the proposals have responded to the effect that they have no objections to the proposals as it is unlikely that many HGVs will be visiting the site; and so long as the applicants are ng to enter into a legal agreement requiring the Cementation of highway improvements prior to the commencement of the use .
Whilst this application has generated a significant degree of local opposition to these proposals it is felt that the opportunity exists whereby if the use were the subject of stringent controls imposed by planning condition that the use could be agreed without there being a serious loss of amenity to the area or to individual residents .
The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the imposition of planning conditions similar to those which have been imposed on the uses permitted at Paslow Hall Farm where they have been shown to effectively control the activities on the site, and subject also to a Section 106 agreement relating to highways matters.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: PARISH COUNCIL - Object the site is in the green belt. Any further development of the site will add to the excessive traffic on local roads. Heavy vehicles are already damaging road surfaces and verges. Many pedestrians including school children have to use this stretch of road . The entrance and space on the site do not lend themselves to access and manoeuvring by large lorries. Have serious concern that the site may develop along similar lines to another in the area which causes much concern e.g. traffic, noise day and night, and effluent problems. The buildings are not of sustantial constuction and will need considerable work to be split into self contained units. Agricultural use of the buildings is the most appropriate use. Passing heavy goods vehicles have to cut into the verges in order to pass. The absence of footpaths will make additional traffic dangerous for pedestrians. BLACKMORE PARISH COUNCIL - Concerned about the possible intensification of the use of local roads by heavy goods vehicles. Increase in pedestrian and vehicle hazards. Noise nuisance. 6 ROOKERY ROAD - The site is currently derelict and 15 abandoned. The reuse of the buildings for agriculture is highly unlikely. Therefore support diversification. Local residents should appreciate the problems being experienced by the local farmers and should be more supportive. If the buildings were to be changed to light industry they could well provide a source for local employment. 250 NINE ASHES ROAD - Do not wish to support the campaign opposed to this application. Farming is clearly having a very difficult time and believe that any help given to farmers should be welcomed . Strongly support the application .
A LARGE NUMBER OF LETTERS OF OBJECTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS WHICH CAN BE SUMMARISED AS FOLLOWS:-
1 . DANGEROUS TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS AT JUNCTION. 2. EXTRA TRAFFIC AND INCREASED DANGER TO PEDESTRIANS . 3. NARROW LOCAL ROADS WILL BE DAMAGED BY HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES. 4. NOISE AND LITTER POLLUTION . 5. CONCERN ABOUT THE HOURS OF OPERATION. 6. POSSIBILITY OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE, AND FIRE RISK. 7. VISUAL IMPACT ON THE AMENITIES OF THE SURROUNDING AREA WHICH IS IN THE GREEN BELT. 8 . THREAT TO WILDLIFE . 9 . PUBLIC UTILITIES NOT CAPABLE OF DEELING WITH THE INCREASED DEMAND.
OLD POND HOUSE -1,2,3,4. GAINSBOROUGH -3,2,4,5. LITTLE BROOKFIELD - 3,2 . WALNUT TREE COTTAGE - 6,2,4. THE MANOR HOUSE - 1,2,4,6,7. RUSHWOOD HOUSE - 7,3,2. 243 NINE ASHES ROAD - 3,4,8. OLD POND HOUSE -1,2,3,4. BLACKMORE VIEW -2,4,6. 202 NINE ASHES ROAD - 6,3,2. WEST VIEW -2,3. DAHL -2,11 . RADWELL -1,3,9,7 . RUSHWOOD HOUSE -7,3,2,9 . 158 NINE ASHES ROAD - 4,2,5. HARDINGS -1,2,3. ONE SPARKS FARM - 7,3,2. THE VINES -3,4,7,9. SOMERTON HOUSE -4,3,2. BEECH HOLT -7,2,3,9,1,4 . MALTINGS -3 .2. THE OLD ROOKERY - 3,2 . 4 NINE ASHES FARM COTTAGES -1,2,4,6,9,3 . ASHCROFT -3,2,7 . DERRYNASEER -4,2 . CHEQUERS -2,4. ASHLANDS -3,2,4 . GREENFINCH COTTAGE - 2,3,7 . MAGPIES -7,1,2 . THE ROOKERY - 2,3,4,5,7. CATONS -2,3,7 . HOPE COTTAGE -2,7,4,5 . HAWKRIDGE -2,3. WILLOWDENE -2. MENUKA -7,2,1 . HIGHVIEW HOUSE -2,1,3,7 . LITTLE BRAYS -2,3. 16 COW14FIELOS -3,2,4. IVY LODGE -1,2,4,6. THE HAWTHORNES -1,2,3,4 . MEADOWSIDE -2,1,4 . ROOKERY COTTAGE - 1,2,3,5. CASA GENOVA -2,1 . from an Ordnance SorveY InaD with Pemdsslan of the Controller of Her MeJestys Stationery. (c) Crovm Copyright. Uneultlorised reproducllon hdrN9es Crovm Copyright arid my lead to proseMlon or civil proceedtrps. E.F .D .C . licerms No . LA 077933 Scale 1:1 .2W _ 23/5/2003 _ Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on: 04/O6/2003 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPF/577/03 Report Item No : 2
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH: High Ongar WICKETS, 245 NINE ASHES ROAD, HIGH ONGAR
APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Donnelly
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Erection of front porch (revised design).
RECOMMENDED DECISION: Grant Permission
1 . To be commenced within 5 years .
2. Materials shall match existing .
Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed surface materials for the parking area shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed surface treatment shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development.
Description of Proposal:
Erection of front porch (revised design).
The main differences between the previously approved plan and the revised plan is that a tiled, hipped canopy is to extend across the full width of the cottage and'a projecting bow window is be built as a bay.
fescription of Site :
Two storey semi-detached cottage, has front parking space and rear garden . The house is part of a ribbon of development on the south-east side of Nine Ashes Road . The whole area is within the Green Belt.
Policies Applied:
DBE9: Excessive loss of amenity for neighbouring properties; DBE10: Design of residential extensions; GB2: General restraint; T17: Criteria for assessing proposals .
Issues and Considerations:
The main issue in this application is whether, this current proposal warrants a different decision from the previously approved scheme. The issues considered are appearance, effect on amenities of neighbouring properties, parking and the Green Belt. The design of the porch and canopy is of a traditional pattern and is felt to add detail to what is at present a simple plain elevation. The comment on the structural stability of the feature is noted, however, this is not a valid planning consideration and a refusal on this ground could not be justified. Structural stability issues would be dealt with under Building Regulations .
The neighbouring property will not suffer any loss of amenity.
The property has two car parking spaces at the front, and the Highways Engineer has no objection to the proposal .
A modest alteration of this sort does not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.
Therefore it is recommended to grant permission .
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : PARISH COUNCIL - Object to details and materials . HOPE COTTAGE, 247 NINE ASHES ROAD - Object to the proposal on the grounds that, the new projecting window is being formed into a bay window, this would be out of character and leaded lights have been incorporated in the new window, which is odd . The new application has included a tiled canopy with hipped ends which is placed from the end of the building through to the Party Wall. This canopy has no pratical purpose . This is totally out of character with both cottages which were built circa. 1725 and are of timber framed construction with render on the outside. The other consideration is the extra loading of the canopy placed on both cottages . A timber framed bulding moves and twists and this could result in damage to the external and internal surfaces. Wfth'&jt,v Aid3:.~~LaC7:.1:Il~ItUIUlqN Head of Environmental Services Civic Offices, High Street Epping, Essex. CM16 4BZ Tel. 01992 564000
1~
from en Ordnance Survey mep with permission of in Controller of Her Majestys Stationery . (c) Crown Copyright. UmLdhorimd reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to proseaelon a civil proceedings. E.F.D .C . licence No. LA 077933 Scale 1 :1,250 23/$/2003 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on: 04/06/2003 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level : Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPF/253/03 Report Item No: 3
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH : Matching MATCHING GREEN CRICKET CLUB, MATCHING GREEN
APPLICANT: Matching Green Cricket Club
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Replacement pavilion.
RECOMMENDED DECISION: Grant Permission
1 . To be commenced within 5 years.
2. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with detailed plans and particulars which shall have previously been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall show the design and appearance of the roof.
3. The building hereby approved shall solely be used as a cricket pavilion and not for any other use in the D2 Use Classes Order 1987 .
Description of Proposal:
The proposal is to remove an existing timber pavilion, measuring 12.5m x 6.2m, by 4 .5m high and replace it with a timber pavilion measuring 17m x 9m, by 6.4 high, incorporating a front veranda, a front gable roof, and a cupola some 1 m in height on the roof ridge. The existing floor area is 77.5m' and the proposed floor area is 153m2, an increase of 97%. The existing volume is 270m", and the proposed volume is 649m", an increase of 140% .
Description of Site:
A single storey timber pavilion used by the Matching Green Cricket Club. It is roughly in the centre of the Green, which is flat and mostly open, with some trees and ponds in the area . The whole area lies within the Green Belt, Matching Green conservation area, and is designated a County Wildlife site.
Relevant History:
EW/EPO/146/60 - Erection of pavilion - Approved EPF/1103/87 - Extension to pavilion - Approved EPF/1162/91 - Extension to pavilion - Approved
Polices Applied:
GB2: Green Belt Policy HC6: Developments in conservation areas 22 HC7: Conservation area design and materials DBE9 : Amenity NC2: County Wildlife site
Issues and Considerations :
The main issues are the impact of this proposal on the Green Belt, conservation area and the amenities of neighbouring properties.
Green Belt This proposal falls under policy G82(ii) that allows associated essential small-scale buildings for the purposes of participatory sport and recreation . There has been a pavilion on the Green for many years, and it was last rebuilt in the early 1960's. This proposal is larger than the existing pavilion, incorporating changing facilities and an equipment store, but on balance this increase is not considered unacceptable in this position for this use .
nservation Area ~e pavilion will be in a prominent part of the conservation area. The proposed building will not detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the area, as it is a traditional use for a village green, and indeed the replacement of the existing building will have an enhancing effect. The use of this area has been ongoing for many years and is part of community life in the village, and indeed cricket pavilions are a part of the traditional fabric of Essex villages.
The Council's Conservation Officer has commented that "this is a quality design which would be a marked improvement on the present building and a positive benefit to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area". The applicant has commented that all machinery currently stored in the open will be moved to the new internal store, with the exception of a roller. This would aid the overall amenity of the area .
Amenity pavilion is some 80m from the nearest neighbouring Wperties to the north and south of the Green, and at this distance it is considered that on balance it would not have an adverse impact on their visual amenities. Use of the pavilion can be conditioned to ensure that it is only used for cricket related activities to avoid social functions and fundraising activities such as dances in the evening which may cause disturbance to neighbours.
Comments have also been received on the possibility of the veranda acting as a focus for youths to gather in the evenings, but the applicant wishes this to be retained . He has stated that the site is open to the view of local residents who can report any problems, and that the local crime prevention officer has no objections to the scheme as it stands. He accepts that youths have gathered on the site from time to time over the last few years, but that it has not been a significant problem.
County Wildlife Site English Nature have raised no objections to the proposal .
Design The design is for a traditional Edwardian style of pavilion, z3 and it is considered acceptable by the Council's Conservation Officer. It also is of a better and more attractive design than the existing building which is unattractive in appearance, and does not have the look of a traditional pavilion . The roof pitch is steeper and therefore higher than the existing roof by 2m, but this pitch is more in keeping with traditional Essex designs, and enhances the proposal. The materials of the roof are still to be decided but this can be conditioned to require approval prior to erection of the building .
Conclusion For all the reasons stated above this application is recommended for approval.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: PARISH COUNCIL - Object, the roof is too steep, creating an unnecessarily high roof line, and leading to a view of a considerable area of roof particularly from the rear of the pavilion - which is the view that many parishioners will see from their home and passing by. Roof pitch should be altered . THE LIMES, MATCHING GREEN - Area of pavilion will have increased by 85%, understand some form of felted roof material is intended which will erode our view and anernity, concerned that such a substaintial increase in facilities may at some future time lend itself to activities not directly associated with the actual game, very concerned that the structure affords accommodation for unruly elements in society; who would be responsible for maintence of club is it becomes unviable, what effects will it have on wildlife? KARENSA & SCATHES, MATCHING GREEN, - (joint letter) Object to increase in size and height, cricket club does not own the Green, and the building does nothing for the conservation area, against any proposal which causes any more noise or nuisance. MOAT END COTTAGE - Object, the new machinery store is not big enough, no drying area for the showers, no score box included, outside storage of machinery is untidy, height will be doubled and too imposing, the veranda is an ideal place for vandals, the proposal is out of character of the Green . MORETON, BOBBINGWORTH & THE LAVERS PARISH COUNCIL - No objection .
Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on : 04/O6/2003 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPF/14103 Report Item No: 4
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH: Moreton, Bobbingworth & The Lavers OAK MEAD, PENSONS LANE, GREENSTED GREEN, BOBBINGWORTH
APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs M Farrell
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: First floor side extension.
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Refuse
1 . The proposed extension when taken with the previous extension to the property amounts to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling, and is therefore inappropriate development harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy GB14 of the adopted Local Plan.
This application is brought before Committee at the request of Cllr Mrs Diane Collins
Description of Proposal :
Erection of a first floor extension over existing single storey addition to provide 2 bedrooms.
Description of Site :
Detached house located on the southern side of Pensons Lane within a small enclave of residential development. The site is well screened by mature vegetation.
Relevant History:
EPO/375/71 - Details of garage - Approved. EPO/303/72 - Details of extension - Approved . EPF/620/81 - Single storey front extension - Approved .
Policies Applied:
GB14: Residential extensions in the Green belt.
Issues and Considerations:
The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt wherein limited extensions to dwellings can be appropriate, the main concern, therefore is whether the proposal is in accordance with policy G814 of the adopted local plan that sets out what is meant by "limited Extensions"
The house was originally a small three bed dwelling with an internal floor area of about 80.6 m2 . there may or may not have been a small scullery/store attached to the dwelling with 2.6 an additional floor area of about 15m2.( which is shown as existing in 1972 plans but is not indicated on plans for an extension from 1948. Since then the scullery/store has been demolished but single storey side and front extensions with a total internal floor area of about 30m2 and an attached glasshouse of about 10m2. have been added .
The proposal now under consideration will add a first floor over the existing single storey extension which extends in front of the dwelling . This will add a further 30m2. The total habitable additions to the dwelling would therefore amount to about 70m2 or an 87% increase in floorspace . (If the scullery/store is counted as original this increase falls to about 70%)
Whichever calculation is applied the proposed extension taken together with the existing additions amounts to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling, and cannot be described as 'limited' in terms of Policy GB14 . The addition is not reasonably necessary to meet contemporary living standards.
*e proposed addition is well designed and there is the advantage of providing a pitched roof instead of the existing unattractive flat roofed addition, but it is not considered that this improvement outweighs the harm to the Green Belt that will result from the addition . Improvements to design could be achieved without the proposed increase in floorspace.
The site is well screened and although the extension extends in front of the original house it will not be overly dominant. The fact remains that the proposal significantly extends what was a small property . Approval of such a further extension that is clearly not in accordance with the adopted policy would set an unfortunate precedent, undermining the policy and reducing the range of smaller more affordable dwellings available in the rural area to meet local housing needs.
The application is therefore recommended for refusal.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : PARISH COUNCIL - No objection......
from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesys Stationery. (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. E.F.O .C . licence No . LA 077933 t:t 23/512003 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on : 04/06/2003 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPF/92/03 Report Item No: 5
SITE ADDRESS : PARISH: Moreton, Bobbingworth & The Lavers WOOD FARM, MORETON ROAD, MORETON
APPLICANT: Mrs M Gemmell
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Erection of equine therapy centre.
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Refuse
1 . The proposed is inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt which is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The circumstances put forward in support of the application are not considered to be very special circumstances sufficient to outweight the harm to the green belt that will result. The application is therefore contrary to policies GB2 ~ of the adopted Local Plan and C2 of the Structure Plan.
2. The proposed commercial development is located within a rural area and is not a sustainable location for such a use. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Core Strategy set out in the adopted Structure Plan and policies CS1 and CS4 and BIW3.
3. The proposal is likely to result in increased traffic movements and parking harmful to the character and amenity of the rural area.
This application is brought before this committee at the request of the ward councillor.
Description of Proposal: eemoval of existing agricultural building and erection of an equine therapy centre. The proposed building measures 40m long by 36m wide and has an eaves height of 3.6m and a ridge height of about 8.6m. The building would provide stabling for 30 horses together with offices, treatment rooms, two lecture rooms a horse walker and horse spa. The building is to be finished with metal profile cladding, stained boarding and Yorkshire boarding . There will be car parking and turning facilities around the building .
Description of Site:
Farmyard area to the rear of existing farm buildings within complex of mixed farm, kennels, cattery and pet crematorium uses. There is a substantial metal clad agricultural storage building on the site at present and the land is cleared of vegetation . At the time of the officers site visit the land was in use for crate storage and low levels of vehicle and equipment storage. To the rear of the site is extensive woodland, with farmland to the north. Relevant History:
EPF/1386/80 - Dog boarding kennels and ancillary units - Approved. EPF/1248/84 - Renewal of permission for existing kennels and erection of cattery building and extension to kennels - Approved. EPF/515/85 - Revised proposal for cattery - Approved. EPF/566/89 - Erection of 15 dog kennels and runs - Approved . EPF/391 /90 - 15 dog kennels and runs - Approved . EPF/1260/90 - Installation of incinerator in existing barn for domestic pet cremations, and creation of garden of remembrance for ashes and burials - Approved 23.11 .90 CM/EPF/2/94 - Use of part of the site as a waste transfer station involving the parking of a refrigerated secure clinical waste storage container - Approved. AGR/EPF/293/98 - Agricultural determination for erection of a potato store - Planning not required . AGR/EPF/695/98 - Alternative position for potato store - Planning not required . EPF/299/00 - Alterations to barn including erection of 8m flue incinerator facility for pet crematorium - Approved . AGR/EPF/1136/02 - Alternative position for potato store. (on site of current application) - Planning not required . A/EPF/959/02 - Display of externally illuminated signage - Refused .
Policies Applied :
Local Plan Policies. D82 relating to appropriate development in the Green Belt. DBE1, DBE4 Design and the built environment. LL2 Landscaping . T14 and T17 relating to parking and Highway issues.
Structure Plan Policies CS1 Sustainable urban regeneration . CS3 Encouraging economic success CS4 Sustainable new development. C2 Development within the green Belt. BIW3 Business development. The sequential approach .
Issues and Considerations:
The application is for an equine hydrotherapy unit that will provide treatment for up to 30 horses. The animals would be housed at the unit and undergo treatment on alternate days for approximately a six week period depending on the severity of their injuries. The business would create 6 full time jobs.
The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Policies GB2 of the Local Plan and C2 of the Structure plan set out the types of development that are appropriate in the Green Belt. The erection of a building for the provision of health facilities for horses does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development. The proposal is therefore by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is therefore up to the applicant to show that there are very special circumstances that outweigh this harm to the green belt. Very Special Circumstances?
The applicant's agent has submitted a supporting statement that sets out the case for the development. That case is summarised as follows:
Need. It is government policy to support farm diversification. Wood Farm has undergone an approved and gradual diversification over the last 20 years including animal boarding and commercial storage . There are a great number of stables and equine facilities in the area and further afield. No other unit exists in the southeast that can offer such facilities, and which will provide a valuable supplement to veterinary services over a wide area .
Green Belt The building by its nature cannot be provided in a town situation and would be out of place on an industrial estate. The siting is within a derelict and disused farmyard covered y~ h decaying equipment and rubbish and tucked behind existing ~'ildings. The height has been kept to a minimum of 8.7m and is lower than the main range of barns. There will be no impact on the Green Belt and no adverse effect on openness . The unit is on the same site as the potato store approved in July 2002. And an existing corrugated steel building will be removed .
Policy The proposal is a natural adjunct to "buildings for outdoor participatory sport and recreation" (GB2ii) and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt (GB2iv) nor with the visual considerations of policy GB7. Policies RST4 and RST5 permit both domestic and commercial horsekeeping as well as stables and ancillary buildings and the proposal is directly related to these pursuits. All the criteria of policy RST5 can be fully satisfied . No landscape features are to be removed, the site is ~ectively screened and additional planting can be carried out ecessary. Policies L10 and L11 are therefore complied with . Traffic movements will be very limited as the horses will remain at the facility for six weeks at a time . The maximum flow will be only 2 or 3 small horse transporters per day, which is less than the traffic using the site when the potato business was fully operational. The large articulated potato lorries will be eliminated from the local roads. The existing farm access has good visibility in both directions and there is no conflict with policy T17.
The applicant has also submitted a supporting letters from a local veterinary practice, Writtle College and from Agricultural Development in the Eastern Region (ADER)
Each of the issues raised above and in the supporting statement submitted by the applicant have been considered in full and are addressed under the same headings below:
Need. The applicant suggests that the farm needs to diversify further for the economic survival of the unit. The holding of about 27.5 hectares is in potato production, and has already significantly diversified - boarding for 55 dogs and 30 cats plus pet cemetery and cremations and clinical waste transfer station . Since 1998, three agricultural determination applications for the erection of potato stores have been determined, the last, and largest of these buildings (24m x 15 m) was to be located on the site of the current proposed therapy unit and was agreed as agricultural permitted development as recently as July 2002. None of these have been built and the supporting statement suggests that the projected returns could not justify the capital outlay, "with the demise of the potato business and agricultural activities Mr Gemmill is only part time employed in farming and further diversification is desirable and necessary for the economic survival of the unit." This raises considerable concerns. The farm has 27 hectares of land, for which, if the agricultural business is to continue there is a need for supporting agricultural buildings and storage space etc. At present the yard area that it is proposed to develop, appears to provide this supporting space. It is an area where farm vehicles and machinery are kept together with the usual detritus that one associates with working farmyards. If this space is taken over by a new build development, there will, if the agricultural use is to continue, be a need for a new area to perform this function. If the potato business is in such serious decline that the space and agricultural buildings are not required then the current proposal is really not a diversification to keep the agricultural business going, but an alternative business proposition .
The fact that there are many horse facilities in the locality and that there is no existing similar therapy unit in the south east does not make this site any more appropriate for the use than any other site in the District.
Green Belt. The use proposed does not appear to be tied in any way to open land use. The horses will not be grazed, or exercised outside they remain within the building for the therapy period . For this reason there does not seem to be any need for the building to be within a countryside location. This is not a small-scale facility for outdoor recreation, as stables are, but business development that is inappropriate within the green belt. The current state of the land is not relevant to its inclusion within the green belt or to its continuing protection . The building is of considerable size, the fact that there is agreement to a potato store on the site as permitted development is not justification for inappropriate development. The potato store is only permitted if it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the site, and the argument is that it is no longer needed, it is therefore no longer permitted development. The removal of the existing agricultural building of just 180m2 cannot justify the erection of a much larger building for a non agricultural use. Even if a site is well screened this does not overcome the presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. To argue, as the applicants agent does, that a building of 1440 square metres will have no adverse impact on openness is clearly unreasonable . Even small extensions to existing dwellings are successfully resisted on Green Belt grounds.
Policy: 31 This is not a small-scale facility for outdoor recreation, or an associated "small scale building" that could be seen to be in accordance with Policy GB2(ii). Policies RST4 and RST5 allow for horsekeeping and stables within the green belt, because they are uses that require only small-scale facilities in connection with outdoor recreation. These uses support the retention of open land for grazing and riding whereas the proposed development has no link to any open land use.
The proposal is a new business development and as such should be considered in relation to the sustainability policies of the adopted Essex and Southend on Sea Structure plan. Policies CS1 and CS4 seek to achieve sustainable new development by applying a sequential approach to development to encourage development on suitable sites that are accessible by sustainable means of transport and are within urban locations. This site does not meet these criteria .
The supporting statement argues that there will be less traffic generated by this proposal than by the potato business when in full production. However in reaching this conclusion the only ffic mentioned are perhaps 2 horse trailers a day (as the . ~rses will be in residence for up to 6 weeks). In reality the proposal will employ six people which means at least 12 additional movements a day and probably more. It is also likely that horse owners will want to visit their horses on several occasions during their stay and that there will be feed lorries, hay lorries and associated deliveries that have not been taken into account. Additionally, if the potato business is to continue, then there will still be traffic movements in connection with that use, so the new use will be additional traffic over and above the agricultural use .
There is no objection to the proposal on highway safety grounds, but the fact remains that this is a quiet rural location in which increases in traffic movements for non agricultural purposes are inappropriate and harmful to the character and amenity of the area.
Conclusion .
9 conclusion it is considered that the proposed development is clearly inappropriate within the green belt. This is not the conversion of an existing building, that could be appropriate, but a new build of an extensive building for an inappropriate use. The circumstances put forward by the applicant have been considered, but do not amount to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the very real harm to the openness of the Green Belt that will result.
The application is therefore recommended for refusal .
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: PARISH COUNCIL - No objection. 8 GAINSTHORPE ROAD - This would result in extra traffic past our address. This increase would be too much for a mainly quiet road such as ours. Extra large traffic not good for the area . Wood Farm already has expanded into commercial ventures that have increased traffic movements. ~tF.~R~~ ~~n~T§I~RICTC~DNCIL Head of Environmental Services Civic Offices, High Street Epping, Essex. CM76 4BZ Tel. 01992 564000 -5 T~ mefrrial rniea'nen in nhig pint hag been rppmdurw1 from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Ma/estys Stationery . (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorsed reproduction Infringes Crown copyright end may lead to Ixoserutirn or civil proceedings. E.F .O .C . licence No . LA 077933 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on: 04/O6/2003 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: A/EPF/128103 Report Item No: 6
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH : Moreton, Bobbingworth & The Lavers WOOD FARM, MORETON ROAD, MORETON
APPLICANT: Mrs M Gemmill
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Display of two externally illuminated free standing signs to be illuminated from dusk to 8pm only. (Revised application)
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Refuse
1 . The advertisement signs, because of their prominent roadside position and means of illumination are an intrusive and incongruous display that detracts from the visual amenities of this rural locality contrary to " policy DBE 13 of the adopted Local Plan .
This application is brought before Committee at the request of the ward councillor.
Description of Proposal :
Display of two externally illuminated free standing signs to be illuminated from dusk to Spm only. The signs are already in position, and permission for the illumination was refused in November 2002. This application is for the same signs and illumination but with specifically limited hours of illumination.
Description of Site:
*trance to farmyard located on the eastern side of Moreton Road.
Relevant History:
A/EPF/959/02 - Display of two externally illuminated free standing signs - Refused 13/11/02 and enforcement action to ensure the removal of the overhead illumination was agreed.
Policies Applied :
Policy DBE13. Aimed at ensuring that advetisments do not adversely affect the amenities of the locality, appear incongruous in the Green belt or constitute a hazard to road safety.
Issues and Considerations :
The signs measure 2 .39m high by 1 .07m wide and are illuminated by a shielded strip light attached to the top of each sign 35 The illumination of these signs was refused by Committee at the end of last year. The only change proposed is a limitation on the hours during which the signs can be lit, ie from dusk until 8pm.
However, such a limitation was referred to at the time of the previous application but the committee still considered that the signs would be unduly prominant in this rural setting and harmful to the visual amenity of the area and the Green Belt. This application is at a time when great concern is being expressed over light spill in the countryside obscuring views of the night sky.
Although some form of illuminated signage may be necessary for the authorised business uses that operate at the site so that customers and delivery vehicles can safely identify the site in this otherwise unlit location, it is considered that the current signage is certainly not appropriate for illumination due to its size.
The application is therefore recommended for refusal.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : PARISH COUNCIL - No objection. 8 GAINSTHORPE ROAD - This is an unnecessary commercial intrusion to the countryside, it would spoil rather than improve the rural nature of the area. from en oranence Survey mar with velmisslan or the Controller of Her Majesty's Statlmnery . (c) Cmm Copyright. Um~wd reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and My IeaE to poseoalon or civil procmdUV3. E.F .D .C . licence No . LA 07797] Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on : 04/O6/2003 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No : EPF/99103 Report Item No: 7
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH: Stapleford Abbotts ALBYNS FARM, STAPLEFORD ROAD, STAPLEFORD ABBOTTS
APPLICANT: The Crown Estate Commissioners
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL : Outline application for erection of an agricultural workers dwelling house on agricultural land .
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Grant Permission
1 . Submission of details within 3 years.
2. Occupation limited to agriculture.
3. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plans received on 24 March 2003 .
4 . Completion to roof level within 2 years.
5 . Submission of detailed drawings
6 . Materials of construction to be agreed .
7 . The dwelling hereby approved shall have a total floor area for the living accommodation not exceeding 150 square metres .
8 . Submission of a landscape scheme.
9 . Submission of Landscape Management Plan
It is also RECOMMENDED that the applicant be required to enter into a SECTION 106 AGREEMENT prior to the decision being issued . The agreement shall require that the dwelling hereby permitted shall not be severed from the associated holding .
Description of Proposal:
Outline application proposing the erection of a detached house for occupation by an agricultural worker.
Description of Site:
A triangular portion of land - located alongside the group of farm buildings which comprise Albyns Farm. Within the farm there are extensive ranges of traditional and modern farm buildings, a farmhouse and a converted outbuilding (used to house students working on the farm). Immediately to the west of the access drive the land is open pasture which provides an ' attractive parkland type setting for the Albyns House.
Relevant History:
None applicable to this particular case.
Policies Applied:
MGB policies GB2 and particularly GB17 relating to the erection of agricultural workers dwellings.
Issues and Considerations:
The main issues in determining this application relates to the viability of the holding and whether or not there is justification for allowing a dwelling on the site for occupation by an agricultural worker.
ee application is supported by detailed appraisals of the holding, and accommodation which is associated with it; and a letter has been written by the applicant further clarifying the background to the application. This information has been the subject of a consultation with an agricultural advisor who in summary has made the following observations:-
1 . The family farm enterprise is substantial - extending to some 583 hectares.
2 . Albyns Farm is run as a mixed arable and livestock unit . The greater part is laid down to wheat, but also includes barley, beans, oilseed rape, maize and grass. The livestock enterprise comprises a 280 head dairy unit which is accommodated in a range of modem buildings which include a parlour which holds 40 cows at any one time and milk storage capacity of 17,000 litres .
Within the farm there are three dwellings - The 0ardners Cottage, The Bungalow and North East Lodge . It is the head cowman that the new accommodation is required for and he currently lives at Battles Hall which is not convenient to this farm. The existing accommodation provides housing for the applicant's son and family, a stockman and a herdsman .
4. Over the last ten years the family has made significant improvements in the dairy business - and not only invested in buildings but increased the numbers of cows from 180 to 280 with the capacity to increase numbers to 340 (the second largest dairy herd in Essex/East Anglia).
5. At least two full time permanent members of staff should be suitably accommodated within sight and sound of the main complex of buildings to meet the supervision needs.
6. North East Lodge is too far distant for proper supervision of the site; and The Bungalow poorly located in terms of its amenity and environment for its occupants and more suitable for student accommodation rather than permanent full time staff. 7 . The location chosen for the proposed new house is better suited to meet the essential demands of the enterprise . Furthermore it is recognized within the industry that specialist workers such as senior herdsmen require accommodation commensurate with their employment.
In conclusion the appraisal supports the need for an additional dwelling to serve the unit. Amended plans have been sought in relation to the proposal which provide a far less intrusive location for the new house. The original submission although located in a position close to the buildings to be supervised would have proved very intrusive in the open countryside. The pastures located in front of Albyns House contribute an open parkland setting to the house and it was into this that the new house would have been placed . The revised location is such that from the public view the house would be seen against the background of the dairy buildings and would not be intrusive in the open countryside. There would however be benefits if landscaping were to occur around the boundaries of the site of the new house in order that it would be better screened .
The development accords with the general requirements of policy GB17 of the Local Plan and there is justification for a dwelling on the site - the application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement that it should not be separated from the existing agricultural holding .
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : PARISH COUNCIL - No objections to outline permission being granted but await the submission of detailed plans . BRENTWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL (comments on the original plans) - the siting is unacceptable because it will involve the house being erected in an open and conspicuous location and unrelated to the existing group of outbuildings . The development would be harmful to the openness and character of the green belt. from an Ordnance Sorvey mep YAM pennission of the controller of Her Majesys Stationery . (c) Crown Copyright. Umuthodsed reproduction Wring" Crown Copyright and my lead to prosecution or civil proceedings . E.F.D .C . licence No . LA 077939 231 003 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on: 04/O6/2003 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level : Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPF/425/03 Report Item No : 8
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH: Stapleford Abbotts BOURNEBRIDGE GARDEN CENTRE, OAK HILL ROAD, STAPLEFORD ABBOTTS APPLICANT: Mr D Dockerill
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Change of use of land from Garden Centre to residential and the erection of six detached houses and garages. (Revised application)
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Refuse
1 . The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposed works represent inappropriate development and are therefore at odds with Government advice as expressed in PPG2, the policies of the adopted Local Plan and the adopted Essex and Southend on Sea Replacement Structure Plan . The latter states that within the Green Belt permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use or extension to existing buildings except for the purposes of agriculture, mineral extraction or forestry, small scale facilities for outdoor participatory sport and recreation, cemeteries, or similar uses which are open in character. In the view of the Local Planning Authority the application does not comply with these policies. Furthermore the Local Authority does not consider that the possible revocation of the extant planning permission for the garden centre development of the adjacent land constitutes very special circumstances which justify a departure from Green Belt policies.
2. Development of this site for residential purposes does not satisfy the sequential test for identifying sites suitable for housing development. The proposals do not therefore accord with PPG3 and policy H2 of the Review Structure Plan . Furthermore the proposals envisage a density of development significantly lower than the 30 dwellings per acre which is required by PPG3.
3. Use of existing access between two residential properties to serve six houses would result in serious loss of amenity to existing residents by reason of noise and disturbance contrary to policy DBE9 of the adopted Local Plan .
4. The design of the proposed road does not accord with the Essex Design Guide, it fails to provide an adequate junction with Oak Hill Road, and has inadequate turning facilities. The proposal does not accord with policy T17 of the adopted Local Plan .
Description of Proposal:
Redevelopment of site of existing garden centre by the erection of six detached houses and garages . In addition the applicant offers to accept the revocation of the planning permission for the erection of a building to be used as a garden centre which has been granted on the fields which adjoin the application site . Description of Site:
The application site comprises an area of land of approximately 1 .9 hectares which is located on the northem side of Oak Hill Road. The site extends some 200 metres back from the road frontage, and within it are a number of sheds and greenhouses which were previously used in association with the nursery. To the rear of the site are a couple of paddocks which accommodates 2 stable blocks.
Relevant History:
There has been a history of planning applications relating to this site extending back to 1948. In 1975 an established use certificate was issued in respect of the nursery and in 1976 planning permission was granted for a change of use from nursery to garden centre. Other proposals have been approved which involve the expansion of the garden centre onto adjoining fields to the west. Most recently planning rmission was refused for the redevelopment of this site for erection of 6 houses - reasons being Green Belt site unsuited for residential development, loss of hedges, unsatisfactory route of access, failure to accord with Essex Design Guide - Refused 19 February 2003.
There is also under consideration a current planning application for the renewal of the planning permission for the erection of the garden centre building on the adjacent land .
Policies Applied:
Local plan policies include GB2 and GB7 (Green Belt, DBE1 and DBE4 (residential development policies), LL2 and LL3 (rural landscape), T17 (traffic).
Replacement Structure Plan policies are CS1 (sustainable development, C2 (development in Metropolitan Green Belt), H2 &quential approach to housing), H3 (location of residential Svelopment), 81 W4 (safeguarding employment land) and T1 (sustainable transport strategy).
Issues and Considerations:
The main issues in dealing with this application relate to whether or not there is justification for relaxing Green Belt policies, the sustainability of the site for residential purposes, the need for new dwellings and the impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties. In addition the differences between this application and that previously refused planning pennission fall to be considered .
As with the application considered earlier this year this proposal will not only result in the loss of the existing garden centre, but is accompanied by an undertaking from the applicant that he would be willing to accept the revocation of the extant permission which applies to the land next to this site. It is his contention that the proposal to erect 6 houses would have far less impact on the open character of the Metropolitan Green Belt and that the benefits of his proposals amount to very special circumstances which justify a departure u-3 from policy.
It is pointed out that three of the six houses have been reduced in size from those originally being proposed and that the floor area of the new houses would no longer be in excess of the area of the new building proposed to serve the garden centre extension . Consequently the built development will not have such an impact on the Green Belt. The applicants also point out that the houses are of a size whereby they relate well to others in the vicinity whereas if smaller properties were to be proposed they would be quite out of character. Furthermore the intention is to retain the surrounding boundary hedges in order that they will screen the adjacent properties to prevent them being overlooked .
In addition to the foregoing the applicants have emphasised their willingness to have revoked the planning permission for the extension of the garden centre but have pointed out that the viability of the redevelopment of this site would be prejudiced if they were not allowed to build six houses on the site.
There are undoubtedly benefits from the revocation of the planning permission for the extension to the Garden Centre. That development may prove to be very intrusive and its revocation is a material consideration.
Nevertheless, the proposal to erect six houses on this site amounts to a departure from Green Belt policies for which very special circumstances would have to be shown to exist. It is important to note that the Council's housing targets have already been met for the period up to 2011, indeed these figures have been exceeded and there is currently an over-supply of 47%. In these circumstances the need for additional housing is not proven, and indeed the benefits of retaining this site with some form of employment potential must be a consideration .
The sequential test required by PPG3 has also to be applied to the consideration of this application . It is considered that if any sites in the district are to be developed for housing purposes there are a number of more suitable locations than this. Stapleford Abbotts is not well served by public transport, has very few amenities for use of local residents and is therefore poorly positioned to accord with the requirements of this legislation and of policy H2 in the Review Structure Plan.
Finally the effect of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring residents have to be taken into account. The depth of the site will inevitably result in the location of houses in positions where they could have a detrimental effect on the amenities of residents of housing fronting onto Oak Hill Road . The house located at the extremity of the site in plot No. 5 would be a serious intrusion into the open countryside not only affecting the outlook and privacy of the neighbours but also impacting on the openness of the Green Belt. As with the previous planning application the proposed access to the development site will be located between two dwellings and use of this to serve six houses will result in both a loss of privacy and disturbance to the residents of the two dwellings.
In summary, these proposals fail to comply with Council policy and therefore the application is recommended for refusal . However, the offer to revoke all permissions relating to the adjacent land is a material consideration and the committee may feel that it is sufficient to justify setting aside normal policy considerations. If the committee is minded to support the proposal, the application will need to be referred to District Development Control Committee for decision, and the committee might also like to express a view particularly about the house proposed as plot 5.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : PARISH COUNCIL - Agree in principle . If permission is granted the application for the retail outlet and car part should be withdrawn. ROSEMOOR, OAK HILL ROAD - Concerned about the generation of traffic onto this dangerous section of road . Have already corresponded with the Councils Highway section regarding the traffic situation . ANDERS, OAKHILL ROAD - Opposed to development of green belt (*d . Having 6 houses built against the boundary of the property will be an invasion of our privacy. HASFORD, OAKHILL ROAD - Opposed to the application. Following the removal of the boundary trees we will be overlooked and will lose our privacy . Why are the houses to be built so close to our property when they have 13.5 acres which could be developed? The access is in a very dangerous position on the blind bend . The proposed houses will not serve the needs of the local community. If permission is given for these houses many more could follow on and create a large estate. Houses should not be allowed to encroach into the green belt. THE OUTLOOK, OAK HILL ROAD - Object to the loss of privacy which would occur having houses built at the back of this property. There will also be privacy problems associated with the position of the access road . There will be light pollution and noise pollution particularly during the summer. Object to building in the green belt. The nursery is not currently in full use - it is not derelict or abandoned. There is a threat he trees which exist on the site because of the proximity ahe houses. Cannot see the need for more houses why not run it as a viable garden centre. Why can't the applicants build an annexe for their daughter if the accommodation is so important? Feel that the is a degree of coersion to allow the houses in lieu of the garden centre development which was not really wanted in the first place. BISHOPS BROW, OAKHILL ROAD - Opposed to the development of green belt land . The village is not capable of taking developments of large houses. from an Ordnance Sorvey map with pemission of the Controller of Her Majesty's StatJonery. (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright arid my lead to P-OSeCLdiM or civil proceedings. E.F .D .C . licence No . LA 077933 IEpping Forest District Council ' Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on : 04/06/2003 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No : EPF/534103 Report Item No: 9
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH: Theydon Mount HILL HALL, MOUNT ROAD, THEYDON MOUNT
APPLICANT: P J Livesey County Homes Ltd
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposed stable block to be erected on existing paddocks.
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Grant Permission
1 . To be commenced within 5 years .
2. Materials of construction to be agreed.
The stables shall not be used for any business or commercial activity, such as livery, but only in connection with the keeping of horses for private recreational purposes.
4. Before the development is commenced, details of the means of storage of manure and other waste shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and any manure or other waste shall thereafter be stored in accordance with the approved details.
5. No burning of manure or other waste shall take place at the site.
6. Notice for archaeological recording .
7. No lighting shall be installed on the site without the written agreement " of the Local Planning Authority.
8. No development shall take place on site until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a plan indicating further planting details, which are to be indicated in a timetable for implementation. The details as agreed shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.
9. There shall be no parking or storage of horse boxes, trailers or vehicles within the application site other than for temporary service access.
Description of Proposal:
Single row stable block, consisting of 4 loose-boxes, a hay store and tack room, measuring 21 .6m in length, 3.6m in width and a maximum height of 4.2m to the central ridge of a proposed pitch roof. A 3.1 m concrete yard will be built in front of the stables, served by a proposed gravel path, to run along the southern boundary of the site via a new gate. The building
L}.7 will be located in the south-west comer of the site .
Description of Site:
Irregular shaped site to the south-east of Hill Hall, a grade I listed building, recently converted into residential apartments . The site is open, overgrown, former grazing land which is bounded by a thick hedgerow on its western boundary, beyond which, to the west, are tennis courts and a small formal garden, part of the Grade II formal gardens of Hill Hall . The remainder of the surrounding area is open countryside apart from St Michaels Church, to the east. There is an existing access road running along the eastern boundary of the site, which links into the main driveway to Hill Hall from Mount Road, to the north.
Relevant History:
EPF/24/99 - Refurbishment and conversion of main hall and associated stables and outbuilding into residential apartments and dwelling houses (20 units) with ancillary new build garaging/parking and new service installation - Approved 8/12/99.
EPF/1773/02 - Proposed timber stable block to be erected on existing paddocks - Refused :- fail to use traditional facing materials, detrimental to the appearance of the conservation area ; design and appearance to detract from the character and appearance of the historic building and park.
Relevant Policies:
Hill Hall is a site of an ancient monument, registered historic park (Grade II), Grade I listed building and Hill Hall conservation area. Policies HC3, HC6, HC7 and HC12 are relevant. The site is located in the Green Belt - Policies GB2 and GB9. Horse keeping and stables - RST4 and 5 . Amenity of local residents - DBE2, DBE9. Development likely to cause a nuisance - RP5.
Issues and Considerations:
The main issues in this case are the impact of the development upon the surrounding area, particularly in respect of the setting of the listed building and listed park, the conservation area and the amenities of the residents living in Hill Hall and neighbouring buildings.
Effect on Listed Building, Listed Park and Conservation Area
The main objection to the previous application was in respect of the use of the materials and the external appearance of the stables. The siting of the stables is not considered to be harmful to the setting of the listed building or grade II park, primarily because it is not located in the formal garden area and well screened by the existing hedge . Furthermore, the access has been moved to the southern boundary of the site, such that the proposal will not harm the visual link between the church and the main listed building. The concerns of the Historic Garden Society have therefore been met in this respect.
Whilst the building will be well screened from Hill Hall itself, the rest of the site is open . The previous scheme was an inappropriate light-weight structure with a shallow pitch roof. This proposes a steeper roof pitch and appropriate pantile finish . The outer walls will be black, feather edge, timber weatherboarding on a timber frame. There is now no objection to this more traditional stable building, and the proposal satisfies policy HC6, HC7 and HC12 of the Local Plan.
Green Belt
Against the backdrop of the hedge, the stable block, a long, low, slim building, screened by the hedgerow, would not be conspicuous from the existing access road . In this rural setting, a stable block of this design and appearance, is not an uncharacteristic feature of the landscape. Neither the building or the associated hard surface or the gravel access would have a significantly adverse impact upon the character d appearance of the local landscape. However, some limited 4 Woormal planiting of native species of shrubs/trees would help to mitigate its impact. It would therefore comply with policies GB2 and GB9 of the Local Plan .
Residential Amenity
The proposed stables will be approximately 300m away from the residents in Hill Hall, behind a thick hedgerow. Visually, there will be no detrimental impact, given the distance separating the two buildings, its modest scale and acceptable design . The site must have been used for pasture or rough grazing in the past and the keeping of horses on the land would be acceptable. The residents have raised objections on grounds of smell, flies associated with manure etc. An area close to the stables could be found where manure can be stored without causing excessive loss of amenity for those living nearby, details of which can be controlled by a condition . A condition to prevent the burning of manure or other animal waste is also cessary. or The applicant has made it clear that the stables are solely for private use for the grazing of 4 horses, storage of hay and associated equipment . It is agreed that conditions are needed to prevent the commercial use of the stables, so that they do not generate excessive traffic harmful to the open character of the surrounding countryside, or the amenities of nearby residents. There are no highway objections to the use of the main access from Mount Road, particularly as the road was re-aligned at the entrance to improve sight lines for the extra 20 apartments when Hill Hall itself was converted . The proposal will therefore not be contrary to policy DBE2, RP5, RST4, RST5 and T17 of the Local Plan.
Other Matters
The feared conversion of the building into residential at a later date would be inappropriate development in the green belt. But in any case, it would also be resisted through the terms of the head lease with English Heritage and the applicants who own the site and Hill Hall .
Access will be from the main driveway only and through the
Lfq existing private access track to the southern boundary of the site. It is not anticipated that any horse boxes/transporters will be stored on the site, because of fear of theft and any vehicles will provide a mode of transport to and from the site only.
Any dispute over the use of the land by the existing residents is not a planning matter but an issue between them and the applicant.
Summary
It is considered that the proposal will not harm the setting of the listed building, listed garden or the conservation area. There will be no undue disturbance to local residents and the proposal will not compromise the Green Belt. It will not be contrary to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and is therefore recommended for approval .
The application relates to works in respect of a site of a scheduled ancient monument and therefore if the Committee endorse this recommendation, it will require the subsequent approval by the Government Office for the East of England before planning permission can be granted.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : PARISH COUNCIL - Object. This is not for the residents of Hill Hall who object to the development and use of their front access drive by others, will adversely affect their enjoyment of their property, concern over highway issues if the front drive cannot be used, no direct access to local bridal paths, ground is part of the historic gardens and has never been used as a paddock, would be visible from the Church and detrimental to the landscape of this historic site . 17 HILL HALL - Enclosure of almost 20% of our amenity land is unacceptable, grandson is hyper allergic to horses and may be contaminated . 9 HILL HALL - Cannot deal with this application until other on-going issues re: landscaping have been resolved, object to nuisance odour, electricity will be required and hidden from view, access from the main gate and road is unacceptable, detrimental impact on listed building, no longer will be free access for ourselves, six stables is excessive and implies a business, any planning permission should have a planning restriction against business use . 10 HILL HALL - Applicant has no right to sub-let this land, land is for sole use of Hill Hall residents, grade II listed land and therefore not suitable for stable or commercial use, no access from the motorway, cars continuously use the access road and horses cannot have access to the main entrance, we have the sole rights to use this road, path will be continuously fouled by the horses, waste material will not be disposed of properly. APARTMENT 4, HILL HALL - Object to use of 7 acres of land which forms part of the 39 acres of grounds and parkland to Hill Hall, health issue to residents as stables are close to the tennis court, where would visitors to Hill Hall park if the access road to the stables is used?, part of historic parkland . 18 HILL HALL - Will take away my rights to access all the grounds, harm to the protected gardens, potential for commercial development, dangerous to allow access from the main 50 driveway, son suffers from asthma and is allergic to horses, will set precedent for further development. 7 HILL HALL MANSIONS - If using the main drive, responsibility for wear and tear from extra traffic will be ours not the applicants, same with any damage to the listed grounds which will occur, who will clear up the horse mess, access from Mount Road is precarious for horseboxes and horse riders, no sufficient passing place for horses and cars, would compromise our security, infringe on my privacy. 5 HILL HALL - Object to loss of land, increase access danger to Mount Road, particularly when Hill Hall is open to visiting members of the public, no gate to the paddock despite being stated on the plans, stable use for commercial purposes, expect this to become residential later on. 15 HILL HALL - No detail of manure disposal, offensive smell to neighbours, excess traffic generated, drainage and water supply details, how will the pasture be maintained and fenced?, future exercising facilities may follow, what is the purpose of the yard? 6 HILL HALL - Question whether this has ever been used as paddock, increase road accidents at the main entrance, six rse stable block is large enough for commercial use, may 4 Wcome residential, condition to restrict use of the stables, detract from visual amenities and not in keeping with the setting of the listed building, not included in the original landscaping proposals for the conversion of Hill Hall, stables will cut across the line between Hill Hall and St Michaels Church, applicant previously objected to bridlepath. 14 HILL HALL - Breach of lease, growth in traffic, increase commercial gains for this site . MIDDLE COTTAGE, 21 HILL HALL - Six stables will generate significant manure and how will it be stored, burning of manure will create smoke and odours offensive to residents, water supply may affect our pressure, drainage worries may lead to flooding, associated lighting shall not harm the existing landscape, what is the purpose of the yard?, increase traffic and hazard to main entrance, seek guarantees to still have access to this part of the site, visual impact on Hill Hall . 20 HILL HALL - Loss of access to this part of the site, object to commercial use, concern over manure storage, increase ffic, water supply, control of the paddock, no doldlighting, safety aspect, future residential use . COUNCIL FOR PROTECTION OF RURAL ESSEX - 6 stables with supporting facilities would be inappropriate and intrusive in the landscape of a conservation area . ENGLISH HERITAGE - Subject to appropriate archaeological mitigation, we have no objections as this would not have an adverse effect on the setting of Hill Hall. GARDEN HISTORY SOCIETY - No objection in principle, but if the rear of the stables would be prominent in views from the protected parks and gardens, then efforts may be made to reduce the impact, possibly by screening or planting. There are strong visual links between the house and the church and if regular vehicle movement across the area is envisaged, access should be along the south boundary. A condition should be included to state there shall be no parking or storage of horse boxes/trailers, within the application site. from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary . (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crovm Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. E.F.D .C . licence No. LA 077933 CB t:2,son 23I5/2003 APPENDIX 3
Appeal Decisions - October 2002 to March 2003
Planning Appeals Allowed:
1 . EPF/606/02 - Residential redevelopment at The Cutting Edge site, Sun Street, Sheering 2. EPF/661/01 - Retention of mobile home at Norton Field farm, Norton Mandeville 3. EPF/1686/01 - Residential development at Sunnymede Garage, Lamboume Road, Chigwell Row 4. EPF/1830/01 - Front extension and loft conversion at 87 Shooters Drive, Nazeing 5. TEUEPF/179/02- 15m telecommunications mast at Collins Farm, Foster Street, Hasting wood 6. EPF/190/02 - Conversion of barn to recreation building at Langridge Barn, Paynes Lane, Nazeing 7. EPF/286/02 - Conversion of integral garage at 155 Princes Road, Buckhurst Hill 8. A/EPF/1249/02 - Non-illuminated freestanding sign at Sainsbury's Distribution Depot, Waltham Point. 9 . EPF/1887/01 - Change of use from retail to office at 4 Sun Street, Waltham Abbey 10 . EPF/1888/01 - Rear extension at Brook House, Epping Lane, Theydon Mount
Planning Appeals Dismissed
11 . EPF/1390/01 - Removal of agricultural occupancy condition from Oaklee Farm, manor Road, Lambourne End 12. EPF/2164/01 - Residential development at lakeside Nursery, Pecks Hill, Nazeing 13. EPF/897/02 - Vehicular crossover at 2 Elm Cottages, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey 14. EPF/1039/01 - Use as hot food take-away at 14 Nazeingbury Parade, Nazeing 15 . EPF/1067/01 - Use for retail at Beechview Nursery, Avey Lane, Waltham Abbey 16 . EPF/1453/01 - Commercial glasshouse at 1 Springhouse Cottages, Abridge Road, Theydon Bois 17. EPF/1662/01 -Wall and railings at Edgefield, London Road, Stanford Rivers 18. EPF/1721/01 - Rebuilding shop at Shell Filling Station, Manor Road, Chigwell 19. EPF/1721/01 -Gates and fencing at Pickfield Nursery, Pick Hill, Waltham Abbey 20. EPF/1837/01 - Replacement dwelling at The Haven, Harlow Common 21 . EPF/1842/01 - First floor side extension at 22 Stewards Close, Epping 22. EPF/1916/01 -Two storey extension at White House Cottage, Brentwood Road, Ongar 23. EPF/1947/01 - Redevelopment to form 11 flats in four storey building at 147/147A Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill 24. EPF/2133/01 -Agricultural workers dwelling at Clapham no.3 Nursery, Hoe Lane, Nazeing 25. TEUEPF/2144/01 -15m . high telecommunications mast at Thrifts Hall Farm, Abridge Road, Theydon Bois 26. EPF/2190/01 - Retention of mobile home at Blewgates Farm, Rookery Road, High Ongar 27. EPF/66/02 - Car sales and valetting service at 107/109 Church Hill, Loughton 28. EPF/160/02 - Rebuilding of office suites at do 153 Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill 29. TEUEPF/211/02-15m. high telecommunications mast at St Johns Farm, Hoe Lane, Abridge 30. EPF/276/02 - Garage and games room at High Meadow, Coopersale Street, Epping 31 . EPF/277/02 - Rear extension at High Meadow, Coopersale Street, Epping 32. EPF/306/02 - Erection of detached residential annex at Meadow View, Bournebridge Lane, Stapleford Abbotts 33. EPF/368/02 - Detached house at 88 Lamboume Road, Chigwell Row 34. EPF/446/02 - Extensions at Grange Cottage, Matching Green 35. EPF/490/02 - Two storey front extension at 9 Tovey Close, Nazeing 36. CLD/EPF/495/02 - Retention of gates at Elmwood, Mott Street, High Beach 37. EPF/581/02-Two storey side extension and double garage at 15 Chigwell Rise, Chigwell 38. EPF/604/02 - Detached dwelling at Unit 2, Woolmongers Lane, High Ongar 39. EPF/718/02 - Conversion of bungalow to house at Stapleford Farm, Oak Hill Road, Stapleford Abbotts 40. A/EPF/755/02 - Neon sign at 63, Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill 41 . EPF/773/02 -Two storey side extension at 104 Forest Edge, Buckhurst Hill 42. A/EPF/852/02 - Illuminated sign at 128 Church Hill, Loughton 43. EPF/998/02 - Use for parking minibuses and vans at 55 Ongar Road, Abridge 44 . EPF/1028/02 - Detached house at land adj . Meadow View, Church Road, Moreton 45 . EPF/1088/02 - Use for residential purposes at Smallholding, Bassetts Lane, Willingale 46. EPF/1205/02 - New detached house with garages at 82, Grange Crescent, Chigwell 47 . EPF/1252/02 - 2m . high boundary wall at The Harrons, Epping Road, Broadley Common 48 . EPF/1393/02 - Minicab Office at Burtys, 24 Lower Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill 49 . EPF/1398/02 - Vehicular crossover at Broadley Common Farm, Common Road, Nazeing 50 . EPF/1413/02 - Redevelopment for flats at 158/160 Manor Road, Chigwell 51 . EPF/1445/02 - Redevelopment for flats at 156 Manor Road, Chigwell 52. EPF/1414/02 - Swimming pool at Broadley Common Farm, Common Road, Nazeing 53 . A/EPF/1574/02 - Illuminated sign at Happy Nails, 258 High Street, Epping
Enforcement Appeals Allowed
54. Erection of a barn at Norton Field Farm Norton Lane, Norton Mandeville 55. Erection of gates and gateposts at Norton Field Farm Norton Lane, Norton Mandeville 56. Mixed use for agriculture, a concrete pumping business and storage of containers at Sarnia Nursery, Avey Lane, Waltham Abbey 57. Installation of double-glazed replacement windows at Chevers Hall, Chelmsford Road, High Ongar Enforcement Appeals Dismissed
58. Use of building for retail at Beechview nursery, Avey lane, Waltham Abbey 59. Two storey rear extension at 781, Chigwell Road, Chigwell 60. Use as industrial plant hire at Blunts Farm, Coopersale Lane, Theydon Bois 61 . Formation of hardstanding and erection of metal gates and piers at Samia Nursery, Avey Lane, Waltham Abbey 62. Storage of motor vehicles at 55 Ongar Road, Abridge.