Disruption threat from new building boom
Six areas targeted by developers
If you were in any doubt that recession has turned to property boom, look no further than the Hills as development problems—blocked an muddy roads, noise, mess—loom again for residents in six areas which in particular can expect disruption over the next few years: the top of Queens Road round into Pump Hill; Woodbury Hill (again); Baldwins Hill opposite the hollow; Staples Road around the school; York Hill near School Green; and, for good measure, the bottom of Church Hill. See our website for personal views—and we are happy to add yours if you send them to the Editor at i.locks@btinternet.com.
Scene-changing plans for Woodbury Hill
This and other illustrations for the plans to develop Woodberrie, the corner plot at the junction of Woodberrie and Kings Hill, can be seen on the Epping Forest District website here. The existing house is in the centre with the new four-bedroom house on the left and the contemporary extension, linked by a walkway, on the right.
Plans have been lodged with the District Council for a major development at Woodberrie, on the corner of Woodbury Hill and Kings Hill. On the east side are plans for a major new house (left in the artist’s impression below) while on the west side a “contemporary extension” is planned. The development would dramatically change the street view in the very narrow , holly-hedge bounded lane which is Woodbury Hill. Plans can be seen at EPF/0894/14 on the council’s website and comments should be lodged by 25 May. This will be the fifth application to build on the site. See Hills website for personal comment.
Extra floor wanted for York Crescent blocks
Following strong objections by residents, plans to add an additional floor to two of the five flat blocks in York Hill Crescent have been rejected by Epping Forest District Council against officer recommendation.
Four one-bedroom flats would be added to the 1920s-built development.
Many residents of the blocks objected primarily on the grounds of the disruption that would be caused during building works, the impact on their properties and concerns about parking. No new parking provision was proposed in an area where this is already a big concern.
There are a number of garages on the development but these are not necessarily occupied by tenants of flats but instead rented to private individuals and residents regularly do battle with school traffic in the mornings and vehicles parking for Fifteen in the evenings to find a parking space in the area for their cars.
Loughton Town Council also objected to the plans which it considered an over intensification of a plot at a sensitive location on the edge of a conservation area and again raised concerns about the lack of parking in an already congested area.
However, the council officers’ report said that the proposed development was in an “urban area” where new housing was needed and difficult to provide. They suggested conditions to keep disturbance during works to a minimum and said that it was reasonable in an urban area not to provide parking.
A decision on whether to appeal against the decision is awaited from the applicants.
Gable Lodge to make way for new homes?
Gable Lodge, the former Bupa Care Home on the corner of Church Hill and St John’s Road, could be demolished and the site redeveloped to provide 11 retirement homes for the over 55s.
An application has been submitted to Epping Forest District Council on behalf of Ortus Homes, a division of McCarthy and Stone, to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect a new three storey building providing 11 two-bedroom apartments and associated facilities.
If successful the plans would mark a departure for McCarthy and Stone from their more usual business of providing sheltered housing accommodation. The flats would be aimed at ‘a younger retiree’.
The 0.4 acre site features a number of mature conifer trees and is subject to a blanket Tree Preservation Order.
A decision is expected by mid-May.
BIG plans for 5 Baldwins Hill
At 5 Baldwins Hill an application EPF/0407/14 for an underground addition to an earlier proposal has been refused. The outline to the adjacent property in the diagram (left) gives a clue to the size of the extension, marked by darker lines, which received permission over a year ago. The owners now have to decide whether to proceed with the plans already approved or appeal the refusal of the new further enlarged scheme.
Three in a Row
A desirable location to live, The Hills area is always busy with builders and developers improving, extending, and occasionally, where space is available, building new homes.
The upper part of Pump Hill and the top of Queens Road could be facing disruption with a combination of new or unexpired planning consents for three neighbouring sites.
Permission was granted in the middle of January this year for a four bedroom home on the vacant plot of land at the top of Pump Hill (a site known as numbers 12-18) where a black weatherboarded property had once stood until demolished in the 1930s.
(HAS were grateful to the applicant for the opportunity to comment on his proposal before it was submitted to planners and also grateful that our suggestions concerning appearance, materials and scale were taken on board.)
Next door at number 10 Pump Hill permission was given in October 2013 for a two-storey rear extension.
And literally just around the corner at 78 Queens Road planning permission for a two storey side and front extension plus single storey rear extension was granted in 2003. This has been part implemented and the remaining works could be undertaken at any time – perhaps imminently as new approvals for amendments to the roof design (the inclusion of three rear dormers and front and side roof light windows plus the raising of the front gable) were granted in January and April of this year.
With the Queens Road development able to be completed at any time plus a standard three year time limit for the commencement of works that comes with the planning consents for the two schemes in Pump Hill, there is a risk that all the works with their related deliveries will overlap – a hat trick maybe, but perhaps not a cause for celebration in our narrow roads.
A personal view by one of those whose home would affected by development in Woodbury Hill
Q. “WHY DO YOU LIVE HERE?”
“I live here because … it has stunning views, it is a conservation area, the ambience, the history, the hills, high holly hedgerows, narrow country lanes, the interesting mix of attractive property, great pubs, the sense of space, sense of community, the forest and accessbility to London …”
We are all here in the Conservation area for a mix of the reasons above. All of which are subjective and easily eroded.
I live in a weatherboarded cottage (one of a pair) in Woodbury Hill which is a beautiful narrow lane set high on a ridge. My family love it. But this week, I received notification of a planning application, as I expect others did, to build a rather large executive house within the garden owned by Woodberrie. They have also applied to build a contemporary block / annexe to the main house (the size of a 3rd property).
This is the third attempt for development in the garden over the years. Ironically, the first of which was vigorously objected to by the current owners when they lived in a neighbouring property.
The application mentions the spectacular views over Epping Forest and London’s skyline (the new executive house will be afforded). These will have been stolen from all the immediate surrounding properties.
Parking will be a concern with a new 4/5 bedroom house. It is very limited here. And the proposed new entrance is on a very narrow part of Woodbury Hill and close to a bend. A bit of a blind spot.
The street scene on Woodbury Hill will be irrevocably and dramatically changed and I feel, NOT for the better.
I am not against development. Far from it. All areas change and move on. However, this area has been designated a conservation area and as such, any developments have to enhance and improve the nature of the environment. Southbank is an excellent example of being both sympathetic and contemporary.
Will the proposals by Woodberrie meet the criteria for the Conservation Area? I firmly believe the answer is a resounding NO. Indeed, it will have a detrimental impact.
In my family’s view, this application must be stopped.
So I come back again to my original question, why do we live here?
Comments are closed.