Care home and six bungalows at Land off Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey

What was proposed

The application sought a 78-bed care home, six specialist supported-living bungalows, open space, parking, landscaping and access.

“Planning permission is sought for a purpose built mixed-use development comprising a 78 bed care home (Use Class C2) and 6 residential (Use Class C2) dwellings together with open space, car parking, landscaping and means of access.”

“The proposed care home will provide specialist supported living accommodation for adult with complex learning difficulties. In addition to the 78 en-suite bedrooms, the building would provide a number of dayrooms / lounges, assisted bathrooms, multi-function / cinema room, medical areas comprising of clinical room, drug store and nurse room, café / bistro area / private dining area, hair and nail salon, a large kitchen, laundry room, stairwells, lifts, storage cupboards,…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an undeveloped field in the Metropolitan Green Belt, beside Honey Lane, existing homes, open land and protected trees.

“The application site is located on the southern side of Honey Lane, on the eastern edge of Waltham Abbey. It is currently an undeveloped field within the Metropolitan Green Belt, approximately 400 metres northwest of junction 26 of the M25 and 1.5 miles from the centre of Waltham Abbey.”

“To the north of Honey Lane, directly opposite the site, is a built-up residential estate with a care home “Honey Lane Care Home” located on the corner of Honey Lane and Margherita Road. Approximately 200 metres to the east of the site is a hotel complex located on the corner of Honey Lane and Old Shire Lane, close to the motorway junction. To the east and south of the application site is open land.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for a 90-bedroom care home and a mixed-use scheme were refused, including for Green Belt, landscape and EFSAC concerns.

“EPF/2124/16 – Application for the erection of a 90-bedroom Care Home with associated facilities, parking, access, infrastructure and landscaping on the land on the southern side of Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey. Refused.”

“The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. In addition, the proposal would cause significant additional harm to its openness and would conflict with its fundamental purpose of keeping land permanently open.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was considered suitable, the care-home need was unmet, and benefits were judged to outweigh Green Belt harm.

“The application site is sited adjacent to existing dwellings to the north and west and is compact in terms of its layout, scale and nature. Whilst the site is currently free from development and that the development proposed would cause an increase in residential paraphernalia in and around the site which would cause harm to the Green Belt, it is important to note that the development proposal is now smaller in comparison to the previously refused scheme EPF/0817/22 and is…”

“Residential care homes and nursing care homes are similar with the latter having to include care from qualified nurses, with at least one or more qualified nurses always on duty to provide nursing care as needed. Neither residential care homes nor nursing care homes consist of self-contained unit, but of individual rooms where the needs of the occupants are provided for by on-site staff in the residential institution.”

Officer report

Objections received

Twelve objections raised concerns about Green Belt development, sprawl, wildlife, traffic, services, noise, safety and property views.

“Summary of Representations Number of neighbours Consulted: 180 12 letters of objection received raising the following:”

“Inappropriate development in the Green Belt • No very special circumstances submitted to outweigh harm • Not a Grey Belt development • Urban sprawl – open land to the east and south of the site would result in an unrestricted sprawl • No new evidence in the proposal for the Council to reach a difference conclusion • There is already a care home directly opposite this site (Carebase) • Impact on habitat and loss of wildlife • New development on Honey Lane have impacted on…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the planning officer, the applicant’s agent and Ward Councillor S Heather.

What members debated

Members debated the Green or Grey Belt status, unmet care need, landscape effects, sustainability and securing contributions through a legal agreement.

“Members of the Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer and representations from the applicant’s agent, and Ward councillors Cllr S Heather. The Committee discussed the…”

“The committee discussed planning merits of the application including: if the site was green or grey belt, the unmet need for the care home, the impact on the landscape, sustainability and the mechanism for S106 agreement.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted against the officer recommendation to approve the application and then voted for refusal.

“The committee voted against the officer recommendation to approve the application.”

“The committee proposed seconded, and voted for refusal based on the following reasons: inappropriate development of the greenbelt, where the unmet need does not give special circumstance to outweigh the harm to the greenbelt, significant harm to the landscape and character of the site, and no suitable mechanism to secure the necessary financial contributions towards the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (EFSAC) and other infrastructure provision, as set out below.”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The application was refused for Green Belt harm, significant landscape harm and no suitable mechanism for EFSAC and infrastructure contributions.

“1) The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. In addition, the proposal would cause significant additional harm to its openness and would conflict with its fundamental purpose of keeping land permanently open.”

“2) The development proposal fails to demonstrate that it would not cause significant harm to the existing landscape character of the site, particularly on its front boundary adjacent to Honey Lane. As such it is in conflict with Policies DM5 and DM9 of the adopted Epping Forest District Local Plan (2011-2033) (2023) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).”

Minutes