Category Archives: 16 String Jack

Sixteen String Jack Overdevelopment – TBAG’s Worst Fears Confirmed

16 String Jack

Villagers are now realising just how much of an overdevelopment has taken place on the Sixteen String Jack site. TBAG had submitted numerous objections to the earlier plans and were the only Interest Group in Theydon Bois to object to the final plans which, in our opinion, should not have been granted planning permission. The flatted development is simply too tall and wide and with insufficient set back from the road.

We do not believe that it fully satisfied the reasons for refusal, which were made by the Government’s Planning Inspector in dismissing an earlier appeal. See the full letter of objection here.

Winter 2016 Update

16 String Jack, Local Plan, Updates, Village News

Local Planning Matters

Planning permission was finally granted for the development of 7 apartments and one ‘cottage’ on the site of the Sixteen String Jack PH (EPF/2000/16).  In spite of the reduction in the number of flats, Theydon Bois Action Group considered that the final design, due to its height, bulk and insufficient set back, did not fully address the Planning Inspector’s reasons for dismissing the earlier appeal.  TBAG raised a further objection as did the City of London (Epping Forest) and local residents.  Only time will tell what the true impact of the development will be on this sensitive location at the edge of the village!

TBAG also objected to the application for 2 large dwellings to replace agricultural buildings in the Green Belt at Blunts Farm (EPF/2298/16), citing an earlier Planning Inspector’s appeal dismissal relating to this site.  EFDC also recognised the relevance of the Planning Inspector’s reasons and refused the application.

Continue reading Winter 2016 Update →

Autumn 2016 Update

16 String Jack, Updates

Local Planning Matters – A new planning application (EPF/2000/16) for the development of seven apartments and one cottage has been submitted for the Sixteen String Jack PHsite. Theydon Bois Action Group will give consideration as to whether these new plans overcome the reasons why the Planning Inspector dismissed the earlier appeal.

TBAG has also written objections to a revised application for a replacement dwelling at 26 Piercing Hill (EPF/1548/16) and an application for a detached residential annexe to Theydon Hall Lodge in the Abridge Road (EPF/1464/16), because of their potential impact on the Green Belt.  Although just outside Theydon Bois Parish, we objected to a development of fourteen x 4 bedroom detached houses on the Abridge Golf & Country Club (EPF/0232/16) as this could have set a dangerous precedent for similar Green Belt sites.  District Development Management Committee Councillors supported the Planning Officer’s recommendation and voted to refuse permission.

As part of our aim to protect the Green Belt around Theydon Bois, we have also written objections to two separate applications along the Abridge Road for Certificates of Lawful Development  (CLD) for a change of use of agricultural buildings/land to business storage purposes: EPF/1005/16 – Magnolia House  and EPF/1227/16 – Mossford Green Nursery.  CLDs are often applied for where an unlawful activity has been carried out for a number of years on sites which are secluded and difficult to monitor and have therefore remained undetected by EFDC Enforcement.

Protecting the Green Belt – In June, while EFDC were continuing their work on the new Local Plan, an important and highly relevant letter dated 7 June 2016 (download here) and headed “Development on Brownfield and Green Belt land” was sent from the Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis) to all Members of Parliament for English Constituencies.  In his letter, the Minister stated that “The Government has put in place the strongest protections for the Green Belt.”…….. “and that Green Belt boundaries should be adjusted only in exceptional circumstances, through the Local Plan process and with the support of local people.  We have been repeatedly clear that demand for housing alone will not change Green Belt boundaries.”

This message is consistent with the statement made in the House of Commons in January 2014 by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis) “… I also noted the Secretary of State’s policy position that unmet need, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the “very special circumstances” justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.  The Secretary of State wishes to re-emphasise this policy point to both local planning authorities and planning inspectors as a material consideration in their planning decisions. …”, which statement itself was re-emphasising a similar Ministerial statement made by him in July 2013 “ … The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on its facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.   “.

This message is also consistent with the Ministerial Statement that the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Eric Pickles) made on 6th October 2014 urging Councils to “protect our precious Green Belt land” and saying “This Government has been very clear that when planning for new buildings, protecting our precious green belt must be paramount.  Local people don’t want to lose their countryside to urban sprawl, or see the vital green lungs around their towns and cities [fall] to unnecessary development.”  On the same date, new Planning Practice Guidance to this effect was published by the Government stating that “Unmet housing need ….is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt”. 

In a statement made on 13 October 2014 by Mr Pickles, he reminded the House of the Government’s intention to protect the Green Belt saying “…housing need does not justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development. … we have been very clear that there is [sic] no central diktats demanding that councils rip up the green belt.”  The Government clearly remains consistent across several years and various Ministers with its stated support for protecting the Green Belt.

TBAG fully endorse all these ministerial statements and look to EFDC and the Planning Policy Portfolio Holder (Theydon Bois District Councillor John Philip) to implement this policy and not weaken protection of the Green Belt in Epping Forest District by unnecessarily changing existing Green Belt boundaries contrary to Minister’s assurances.

This sentiment would appear to be fully supported by our MP, Eleanor Laing.  Following the Epping Society open meeting held on 22 January 2016 entitled ‘The Future of the Green Belt’, Mrs Laing, who spoke at the meeting, issued a press release acknowledging the high priority local residents gave to the Green Belt in our district and stating, inter alia, “For us, here in Epping Forest, we are in the frontline between urban sprawl from London and the rolling Essex countryside beyond. … I know that we can trust our district council to do all that they can with the production of the Local Plan to make sure that our precious Green Belt can be protected. … The best protection that we can have is our Local Plan and that is being produced in consultation with all our residents. … We have a very tough district council who know how important the protection of our Green Belt is.  It (preparing the Local Plan) has to be done carefully, to the letter of the law, otherwise it will be challenged.  With strength and consultation we will succeed.”  She added that the district’s residents had to “stand firm” against Green Belt development.  TBAG feel confident therefore that our MP along with the EFDC Planning Policy Portfolio Holder could again influence EFDC to protect our Green Belt in-line with the Ministers’ statements.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to develop brownfield sites for housing and note that the new London Mayor has pledged to protect the Metropolitan Green Belt.  The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), to which TBAG is affiliated, has stated that there are at present some 200,000 approved planning permissions for new homes in London which are as yet unbuilt and this gives some indication of “Land Banking” by developers.

It is widely accepted that it was Treasury “policy” to build our way out of the recession and developers, in lobbying Government, favour the easy option of building on green field and Green Belt sites rather than brownfield.  It will be interesting to see if the new Government administration  (Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister) sets out planning policies which actually give greater protection to Green Belts in practice, rather than the previous mixed messages with changes to legislation and the General Permitted Development Order, which have allowed significant developments to take place in Green Belts.

Summer 2016 Update

16 String Jack, NPPF, Updates, Village News

Local Planning Matters – The Appeal Decision on the Sixteen String Jack proposal for 13 flats,  which was of great interest to many residents, was issued on 22nd March 2016 when we finally learned that the Inspector had dismissed the appeal.   The main reason being due to the harm the development would cause to the character and appearance of the surrounding area due to its bulk, mass, prominent position at the front of the site and almost continuous built frontage across the site, particularly as the site is at the settlement edge of Theydon Bois and adjacent to Green Belt land.  The Inspector also recognised the spacious character of the surrounding area and that the development would be at odds with that and would not ‘respond to local distinctiveness’ as set out in Para 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  This part of the NPPF was raised by TBAG’s Chairman at the Informal Hearing last November.  The Inspector’s decision supported the majority vote to refuse permission taken by District Councillors at Planning East Committee and, in doing so, disagreed with the original recommendation of the Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) Planning Officer to grant planning permission.  TBAG now looks to see a radical redesign of any future proposals for this site, fully taking on board the Planning Inspector’s statements.

The proposal to demolish the Marcris Nursing Home and replace it with a new development of 11 flats has been refused by the planning officer without the need for a District Council Committee decision.  The proposed new ‘Debden Hall’ development, just outside our Parish, was approved by a majority vote at Planning South Committee.  TBAG, in supporting Loughton Town Council, had submitted a comprehensive objection and greatly regret the loss of this tranquil Green Belt woodland site at Debden Green.  We have also raised concerns with EFDC over the destruction of the natural landscape around Blunts Farmhouse, where revised plans have recently been approved which now include a basement.

Protecting the Green Belt – TBAG believes that the main threats to our Green Belt arise from the continual amendments to Government legislation (NPPF and the General Permitted Development Order) which dictate what can be developed and where.  In spite of the Government’s statements about protecting the Green Belt, the changes they have made which are intended to ‘liberalise’ planning legislation (largely to enable more development to take place) have not exempted Green Belt land.  The Chairman of the London Green Belt Council has recently written to the Prime Minister asking why the Government’s stated policy on protecting the Green Belt is not being upheld. (See the TBAG website).  TBAG has responded in depth to two recent Government Consultations with a view to ensuring the protection of the Green Belt in any proposed changes to planning legislation.

The other cause for concern is the rapidly increasing population of London (one million in the last decade) and the subsequent outward pressure for more housing in the Metropolitan Green Belt.  Paragraph 159 of the NPPF states that migration must be taken into account in the development of new local plans.  In this respect, the outcome of the EU Referendum (In or Out) will undoubtedly have an influence on future pressures for building on the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The Green Belt’s function as a ‘Green Lung’ cannot be overlooked and its protection is vital in order to mitigate against the high levels of air pollution in London.