Planning Our Future – working towards a new Local Plan
This is a summary of responses to the Community Choices consultation
(Issues and Options) which ran from July to October 2012.
If you would like more detail about the responses received, you can read the full
report presented to Cabinet on our website:
http://tinyurl.com/EFDC-Responses-report (PDF file, 3MB)
The appendix to the report gives details of answers to all the questions:
http://tinyurl.com/EFDC-Responses-appendix (PDF file, 0.8 MB)
Copies of the report and appendix are also available at the Civic Offices in Epping,
and the libraries in Buckhurst Hill, Loughton, Ongar and Waltham Abbey. Please
telephone 01992 564517 for further advice.
1. Why we consulted you
The new Local Plan will look ahead to the year 2033. The main purposes of this
consultation were:
 to ask whether all relevant issues and options for the future planning of the
district had been identified;
 to receive suggestions for anything you thought we had missed; and
 to ask your views on the options included in the document.
The consultation was an important part of the evidence gathering process to help the
Council understand the opinions, concerns and interests of local communities and
residents. The outcomes are an important contribution to assist the Council in
preparing the next stage of public consultation – the “Preferred Options” version of
the new Local Plan.
2. How many responses were received
There were responses from nearly 6,000 people, amounting to over 92% of
respondents. The remaining replies were made by national bodies (such as the
Highways Agency), adjoining local authorities including the Lee Valley Regional Park
Authority and the Conservators of Epping Forest, parish and town councils, and
landowners and developers. Inevitably some questions attracted a large number of
responses, while others received very few replies.
3. Key issues raised in the consultation responses
The following list includes the most frequently mentioned and important issues:
 continuing to protect the Green Belt;
 using “brownfield” (ie previously developed) land before releasing any Green
Belt for development;
 preventing London from sprawling into the district and preventing larger urban
areas (eg Harlow) from merging with nearby villages (eg Roydon);
 establishing accurate forecasts for population growth and related new
housing targets;
 establishing accurate forecasts for new numbers of jobs which would be
needed;
 whether local services have the capacity to cope with the current population
and any future growth, eg schools, GP surgeries, public transport including
the Central Line and rural bus services, sports, leisure and other community
facilities, town centre car parking, and sewerage (in some parts of the
district). Traffic congestion, the general capacity of local roads and motorway
junctions, and problems with commuter parking near Central Line stations
were also frequently raised issues;


protecting the countryside and landscape including Epping Forest, and
acknowledging the importance of agriculture in the district; and
protecting the heritage and character of the district’s towns and villages.
4. Potential development and growth around Harlow
(NB in some of the diagrams below, a few areas are shown as “strategic green belt
gaps” – these are where the distance between settlements is particularly narrow and
where development could lead to the merging of towns and villages)
The consultation asked whether growth around the edges of Harlow, but within
Epping Forest District, should be supported. 3,378 people answered this question, of
which 3,066 (91%) said yes.
Just over 1,200 people replied to the question about whether the above five potential
development areas (HAR-A to HAR-E) were the right ones. 920 (76%) said yes. Of
those who replied no, the reasons given included use of Green Belt land, the
possibility of Harlow merging with nearby villages, and impact on local services.
Alternative options suggested included north of Harlow, and brownfield land within
the town.
HAR-E received the most support (92% of people responding) followed by C (83%),
B (74%), D (69%) and A (68%)
5. Potential distribution of growth elsewhere within the district
Seven potential options for distributing new development were presented in the
consultation – in all of these it was recognised that Loughton/Buckhurst Hill could
only make very minor provision because of strict environmental constraints, ie Epping
Forest and the River Roding flood plain:
Option 1 - proportionate, ie based on size of town or village, with the larger ones
taking more;
Options 2 and 3 - focused on the towns and large villages with a rail or Central Line
station, or good access to the station – proportionate and equal provision;
Options 4 and 5 - focused away from the Central Line – proportionate and equal
provision; and
Options 6 and 7 - based on the towns and larger villages – proportionate and equal
provision.
Option 1 was the most popular, but even so was preferred by only 601 people.
Options 4 and 5 were next, with 383 people supporting proportionate provision and
365 preferring equal provision. Support for the other four options only reached double
figures for each.
6. Potential growth of towns and villages
(i) Buckhurst Hill
Slightly contradictory results here – 73% of people (283 out of 386) said the right
options for Buckhurst Hill had not been identified, but 75% (287 out of 382) supported
development of BKH-1 and 83% (305 out of 368) supported BKH-2.
(ii) Chigwell
NB – the area CHG-A has been withdrawn by the owners (who originally proposed it)
and will not be considered any further in the preparation of this plan.
Very high level of objection – 94% of people (1163 out of 1226) said the right options
had not been identified. Reasons include opposition to Green Belt development, use
of brownfield land first, London sprawl and loss of village character. CHG-1 received
76% opposition (896 out of 1184 people). CHG- B, C and D received 87% objection
with an average of about 2120 people responding to these three options.
(iii) Chipping Ongar
Small parts of ONG-B and ONG-C have been withdrawn by the owners and will not
be considered further in the preparation of this plan.
Another high level of objection, albeit with a much smaller number of responses. 81%
of people (335 out of 411) stated that the right options for Ongar had not been
identified. Reasons include too much development, use of Green Belt land,
congestion in the town, lack of parking and public transport, and adverse impact on
the site of the castle. 70% of people (252 out of 358) objected to ONG-1. Over 82%
of respondents objected to the potential growth areas ONG-B, C, D, E and F. There
were slightly lower levels of objection for ONG-A (77%) and ONG-G (78%).The
number responding for ONG-A to G ranged from 359 to 374.
(iv) Epping
A much more varied range of responses. 77% of people (938 out of 1215) said the
right options had not been identified – development in the Green Belt, congestion in
town and capacity of local services were the main reasons. The majority of people
responding were in favour of EPP-1 (56%), EPP-2 (86%), EPP-3 (89%) and EPP-4
(85%) – between 660 to 670 people responded to these four options. The potential
growth areas attracted a wide range in the number of people responding (126 for
EPP-H up to 780 for EPP-C). Highest levels of objection were to EPP-C (94%), EPPB (90% of 494 people) and EPP-H (86%). There was overall support for EPP-E (58%
of 484 people), EPP-A (54% of 496) and EPP-D (52% of 483). EPP-F and EPP-G
both had results of 40% support, 60% objection (717 and 712 people responding
respectively).
(v) Loughton
In the context of the size of the town a very low level of response was received,
reflecting the fact that few potential development options were identified because of
the proximity of Epping Forest and the River Roding floodplain. 76% of people (254
out of 333) said the right options had not been identified. People felt there had been
enough recent development, and there is concern about traffic congestion and the
potential loss of employment land. Despite this there was a high level of support for
all the potential opportunity areas, varying between 83% for LOU-1 and 93% for
LOU-5 and 10. The numbers of people responding varied between 320 to 360 for
LOU-1 to LOU-9, and just under 250 for LOU-10 and 11.
(vi) Lower Nazeing
68% (131 out of 192 people) said that the right options had not been identified. The
main concerns were protection of the Green Belt and conservation area, congestion
and HGV pressures on rural roads, and impact on existing services and utilities.
Between 165 to 175 commented on NAZ-1 and NAZ- A and B with broadly similar
levels of objection – 63% for NAZ-1, 66% for NAZ-A and 73% for NAZ-B.
(vii) Lower Sheering & Sheering
High levels of objection again with 69% (213 out of 310 people) saying the right
options had not been identified. Concerns included development in the Green Belt,
negative impacts on rural character and community feel, lack of local services, and
traffic congestion at the level crossing. Numbers of people responding to the potential
growth areas ranged from 260 for SHE-C (82% objecting) to 316 for LSH-B (81%
objecting). Broadly similar results for the other areas, ie 73% (of 294 people)
objecting to LSH-A, 76% (of 261) to SHE-A and 82% (of 266) to SHE-B.
(viii) North Weald Bassett
41% (276 out of 668 people) said the right options had not been identified. Main
concerns were loss of Green Belt and agricultural land, impact on local services,
current traffic conditions and lack of public transport. Some suggested that the
Airfield should be used more constructively/intensively. The majority of people
supported NWB-1 and 2 (96% of 685 and 97% of 677 respectively), almost matched
by levels of objection to NWB-3 and NWB-4 (85% of 680 and 89% of 689 people
respectively). NWB-A and NWB-B received the same level of support (57% from 693
and 686 people respectively), although almost everybody said that NWB-A should be
much smaller, restricted to the area between the primary school and the A414.
(ix) North Weald Airfield
An independent study is currently underway on the future of the Airfield, the
outcomes of which will be incorporated into the next stage of consultation on the new
Local Plan. Consequently the only questions in Community Choices asked whether
all the relevant issues and options had been identified. For issues the outcome was
evenly split with 51% (372 out of 731) saying no, and 49% (359) saying yes.
Concerns included the heritage, and future use for aviation, of the Airfield, and
development in the Green Belt. 78% (341 out of 437 people) said that the right
options had not been identified. There were very mixed reasons for this with general
recognition that full consideration cannot be given until the independent study is
published.
(x) Roydon
Just under 130 people commented on the Roydon questions. 49% (62) said the right
options had not been identified – the main concerns being loss of Green Belt and
agricultural land, impact on the village’s character and heritage, capacity of local
services, and traffic congestion. There was 56% (72 out of 128 people) support for
ROY-A, 55% (69 out of 125) objection to ROY-B and a 50/50 split for ROY-C (127
people).
(xi) Theydon Bois
84% (357 out of 425 people) said that the right options had not been identified. The
main concerns were loss of Green Belt and agricultural land, and impact on local
services including the Central Line. There was a pretty consistent level of objection
(57% to 60% of between 652 and 656 people) to the three potential growth areas,
THB-A, B and C.
(xii) Thornwood Common
78% (261 out of 335 people) said the right options had not been identified. Loss of
Green Belt was again the key issue, although there was a lot of concern about the
inclusion of Thornwood with Epping in the options for distribution section of the
consultation. Just under 360 people responded to the opportunity and growth areas
questions, with an almost direct split of results. There was 92% (330 out of 358
people) support for THO-1 and 85% (305 out of 358) for THO-2, while there was
between 83% to 86% objection to THO-A, B and C (356 to 363 people).
(xiii) Waltham Abbey
Responses to questions about this town have been heavily influenced by the
submission from Waltham Abbey Residents’ Association which came with 1,008
signatures – this was by far the largest group response received to the consultation.
Accordingly, 78% (1,062 out of 1,368 people) said the right options had not been
identified. Main areas of concern are capacity of local services, loss of Green Belt,
becoming part of an extended London, and adverse impact on the character of the
historic centre, including loss of tourist trade. There was a very similar level of
objection (78 to 79%) to the potential opportunity areas WAL-1 to WAL- 4 (there were
between 1,337 and 1,356 people responding). 92% to 95% of just under 1,150
people objected to all the potential growth areas (WAL-A to WAL-G).
7. Responses on other topics
(xiv) Housing
Responses to these questions repeated concerns about loss of Green Belt, use of
brownfield land and delivery of adequate roads, schools, GPs and other services etc
prior to any new housing being built. Overall, respondents felt there should be a
tailored approach to new provision, making housing responsive to the mix of ages,
family sizes and ethnicity. They also felt that policies for affordable housing should
not change, but these houses should be for existing residents of the district, and be
located near to jobs. Density of new development should reflect the character of the
area.
(xv) Town centres
Responses to the questions reflected concerns about the limited influence the
Council can have – market and business demand will determine the type of shops
and other services which will locate in town centres. People said there is a need (i)
for a better balance of uses in the centres, and (ii) to protect their heritage and
character, including control of shop front design. As the district does not have many
large or chain shops, residents will always need to travel to centres outside the area
for particular purchases. Town centre parking was frequently raised as a problem –
down to both a lack of spaces, and the clash with commuter car parking near Central
Line stations. Rents and rates are considered to be too high.
(xvi) Employment land
Responses suggested that the Council should survey existing skills of local residents
to ensure that new job provision matched these, and that new jobs should be for local
people.(As regards this last point, while the new Local Plan will make provision for
new housing and employment land, it is not possible or desirable to make people live
and work in the same place. Given the proximity of London, and the Central Line
from Epping, there will always be a high level of commuting in the district). People felt
that leisure, tourism and new ways of working (eg business clusters, live/work units
and home working) should be promoted. Shops and business premises which are
currently vacant should be identified and re-used. Where there are few job
opportunities and little likelihood of this changing, any increase in housing will simply
increase the level of commuting, putting further pressure on the road network and
public transport (including the Central Line).
(xvii) Rural economy
Respondents said that the Local Plan needs to acknowledge agriculture as the major
land use of the district. Farming supports the rural economy, addresses food security,
reduces the need for food imports (in turn reducing CO2 emissions from transport),
and protects the countryside. There is a wish for better rural public transport, high
speed broadband and more provision of social housing exclusively for those born in,
or connected with, the area. There is concern about HGV traffic on unsuitable rural
roads and impact on the character of villages.
(xviii) Transport
Several bypasses were suggested – for Epping, Nazeing, North Weald, Ongar and
Roydon. There is concern about traffic congestion and the general capacity of
motorway junctions and the local road network. Impact of road traffic on Epping
Forest was also raised. Residents from Roydon and Lower Sheering/Sheering
expressed concern about the impact of the level crossings on traffic movements. The
decline of rural bus services and the impact of HGVs on rural roads were also
frequently mentioned.
Various extensions to the Central Line were proposed – to Bishop’s Stortford,
Chelmsford, Harlow, North Weald Airfield, Ongar and Stansted. People felt that the
difference in travel costs between the overground rail and the Central Line needs to
be addressed – to reduce overcrowding on the latter and pressure on car parks in
towns and villages with Central Line stations.
Next public consultation stage for the new Local Plan.
The responses to Community Choices and other background work will feed into the
next stage of public consultation. This will be called the “Preferred Options” or “Draft”
version of the Plan. It will include potential development sites and draft policies for
dealing with future planning applications. The consultation should commence in late
May 2014.