Strong opposition to new housing estate

Epping Forest District Council has received an application to develop Trevelyan House and its adjoining buildings into a mini estate of 10 homes on the site which abuts the Potato Field allotments.  At its meeting the Hills Amenity Society expressed concern that access to the site might be sought via Church Hill and Monkchester Close, a route which would almost certainly impinge on allotment land.  The development would also create a “development bridge” between Baldwins Hill via Stony Path and the almshouses.

Diane Rhodes has submitted the following detailed opposition to the proposal:

• Planning Procedures

• As Loughton Potato Ground (LPG) is the neighbour with the most land adjoining this site, we are disappointed that EFDC did not consult us, particularly as the allotment site is part of the Baldwins Hill Conservation Area.

• As the applicant, Trevalyn House Limited, is including a section of our land as part of their access to their potential development, they should have served a notice on us before submitting a planning

• Further, they have signed the Planning Application Form as being the owner of all the land which is completely untrue as evidenced by the Land Registry documents of Loughton Potato Ground and Trevelyan House which are in the possession of EFDC.’s Planning

• It is unclear whether they are including Epping Forest land owned by the Conservators as being in their ownership too!

As the applicant is not the owner of land he needs to access the site from Monkchester Close, and has not served notice to the LPG, this planning application is invalid as per Article 12 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management) Procedure Order 2010.   Furthermore, Section 65(5) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 says that a local planning authority shall not “entertain” any application for planning permission where these requirements have not been satisfied.

It would appear the proper planning procedures have not been followed.

• Housing

This site is not urban but meets the Essex Design Guide of Arcadia as it is set in the surrounding landscape of Epping Forest, Loughton Potato Ground and Whitaker’s Almshouses which add an air of rurality.   Fewer houses specifically designed for this old part of Loughton would have been preferable than standard designs taken out of a filing cabinet to cram on the site.   The development does not do justice to this particular location.

The present proposal is overdevelopment of the site and the style of houses out of keeping with the location.

• Boundaries – Trees/Hedgerow

• We are not clear from the documents what the applicant proposes for our three boundaries, bearing in mind the Conservation Area (CA) status. These allotments are 200 years old and the second oldest in the country in continuous cultivation and little changed in time.   They were in the forefront of allotment provision in this country.   We are in discussion with English Heritage regarding Historic Landscape status

• We are concerned about the future health of some of our trees, where it is being proposed to prune them back to the boundary.   As you know trees with 3” diameter or more are designated trees and protected by CA status.   We request Tree Protection Warning Signs to be installed on our trees.

• We have concerns for the Root Protections Areas (RPA’s) of our trees on the boundaries, particularly where buildings need to be demolished and new building work constructed.

• We request a Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) to protect our trees.

• It is proposed that protection of trees on the development site and our third party trees are to be under the control of the Local Authority, who refuses to discuss this with us or visit our site, in liaison with the developer and exclude us.

We shall hold the Local Authority responsible for any damage to our trees or their roots or if any die as a result of buildings works.    We shall take the necessary legal action against EFDC and the developer if damage occurs.

We request that no materials or machinery is stored near our trees/hedgerow and no ground disturbance which would affect our trees.   We request our trees and their roots are to be protected by fencing.

We request that the Chairman of LPG is involved in the discussions regarding our boundary trees and hedgerows.

• Tree Protection

In the Tree Protection Plan seems to show a section of ‘Old Lane’ to be dug up but there is no authority for the developer to do this as they are not the landowner.

• Highways

We are not allowing the use of Old Lane, which is in our ownership, to be used by anyone delivering to or working on the development site and request a protection barrier so that construction traffic does not go astray.   Neither shall it be used by residents who may live in the houses built there.

If any damage occurs on Old Lane, or trespass, legal action will be taken.

• Old Lane is not a public footpath or for public access generally and has been in existence and in our ownership for at least 200 years.   It is private land.

We refer to Ordnance Survey map of 1880 which clearly shows the footpath and ‘Old Lane’ leading into the allotments and not part of Trevelyan House which was not in existence then.

Any damage caused to anything or anyone on Loughton Potato Ground as described in our Land Registry document, will be referred to the Charity Commission with whom the land is vested.

• The entrance to the Trevelyan House site from Monkchester Close is below highway standards and does not meet their criteria.   They have sent a copy of a plan to Essex Highways indicating they own ‘Old Lane’ and can therefore meet the standard.   This is blatant manipulation and completely untrue.   So Essex Highways have given their approval to a false document.

• Further, there is a highway safety issue when plotholders exit the site, whether pedestrians or cars, on to “Old Lane’, they will not be able to see any traffic exiting the Trevelyan House site and vice versa.   The safety of plotholders seems to have been omitted in these documents.

The entrance of Trevelyan House does not meet highway standards and puts plotholders’ safety at risk.

• Traffic

Traffic accidents occurring on Goldings Hill, which is the A121 and a Major Distributor Road, are only shown at or near the junction with Monkchester Close as being two or three minor occurrences.   Whereas the number of personal injury accidents on Goldings Hill for the last two years are 22.   There have been other accidents either not reported or not causing personal injury.   There have also been fatal accidents on Goldings Hill.

As can be seen from Essex County Council’s figures, this is a very busy road and is difficult to access on to or from side roads due to the heavy traffic.   It has been proven A-roads are more dangerous than motorways because of side roads and we have six on Goldings Hill.   It is used by vehicles wanting to access or exiting from the M25 motorway about two miles away.

The A121, Goldings Hill, is heavily used by traffic and any additional side road movements will only increase the dangers.

The information given on accessing the town centre, local schools, the college and underground stations on foot are very misleading as new or even existing residents would not walk those distances.   This site is in the northern most part of the town as it is only 2 minutes walk from Epping Forest.

• Misleading information on accessing essential places.

• Parking

There is inadequate parking for that number of 3 and 4 bedroom houses and their visitors.   There is no other land available for them to use.

There is inadequate parking for the proposed number of houses and visitors.

• Appendices A ST-2397-01 and E ST-2397-02 in the Stomor Transport Statement are totally incorrect in terms of land ownership of ‘Old Lane’(see Land Registry documents).

• Contaminated Lane

We request that no contamination on to LPG takes place when dealing with the contamination of this site.