Large house extensions at Ringinglow, High Road, Epping

What was proposed

The application sought extensions to the rear and side, a front porch, house refurbishment and associated landscape works.

“Planning consent is sought for the demolition of the existing conservatory and part demolition of rear elevation to create two storey rear and 1.5 storey side extensions; extension of southeast facing roof to create front entrance porch; refurbishment of existing house and associated landscape works.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The detached five-bedroom house sits on a large plot within the Bell Common Conservation Area and Metropolitan Green Belt.

“Ringinglow is a mid-20th century detached 5 bed dwelling with later extensions. Sited on a large plot and set back from the highway, it is positioned some 25m from High Road and is separated by entrance gates and a large driveway. A large ‘L shaped’ outbuilding is located to the rear/north-east of the site. The dwelling comprises brick facade with Mock Tudor decorative timber cladding, painted brickwork and concrete roof tiles.”

“The site is located within the Bell Common Conservation Area (BCCA) and within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Green Belt. Bell Common provides an important transition in the landscape between Epping Forest and the built-up area which forms the outskirts of Epping. With a large number of trees, green space and the nature of the buildings (modestly sized, low rise and relatively spread out), this area has a district rural character.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

An earlier similar application was refused, while a later identical scheme was approved with conditions after including outbuilding demolition and replacement planting.

“Planning permission was then approved with conditions in June 2024 (EPF/0906/24) for an identical scheme to the April 2024 proposal except that it included the demolition of existing outbuildings and replacement planting.”

“This application seeks consent for the demolition of the existing conservatory and part demolition of the rear elevation to create a two-storey rear extension and 1.5 storey side extension; extension of southeast facing roof to create a front entrance porch; refurbishment of existing house; and associated landscape works. With the exception of minor documentary updates to the submitted Design, Access and Heritage Statement.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal too large and harmful to the conservation area, with no very special circumstances outweighing the Green Belt harm.

“Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

“The proposed extensions would result in an additional 347.37m 3 , representing an increase of 39% of built volume to the existing site; again, it is emphasised that this percentage is likely to be much higher when compared to the original dwelling built in 1950.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The town council had no objection, the conservation officer objected, and drainage and trees officers had no objection subject to conditions.

“Epping Town Council have no objection to the application, stating: Whilst committee have NO OBJECTION to this application, they do not support the removal of trees unless there is no alternative and would request that any tree work is carried out under the supervision of the arboricultural officer at EFDC.”

“EFDC Conservation Officer: OBJECTION – due to the harm it would cause to the significance of the designated heritage asset (Bell Common Conservation Area), including that of its setting. • EFDC Land Drainage Officer: NO OBJECTION subject to conditions. • EFDC Trees and Landscape Officer: NO OBJECTION subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Resident responses

No resident responses were received from the six consulted residents.

“No Resident Responses Received (6 consulted).”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee received a presentation from the planning officer and a representation from the applicant’s agent.

What members discussed

Members discussed the planning merits, including the site’s location in a conservation area and on Green Belt land.

“Members of the Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer and a representation from the applicant’s agent. The Committee discussed the planning merits of the application and the Planning Officer explained further that the site was both in a conservation area and on green belt land.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee voted to refuse the application because its scale and design harmed the conservation area and constituted inappropriate Green Belt development.

“(1) By reason of its design, inappropriate massing, density and general scale of development, the proposal, in combination with the existing extensions and outbuildings, fails to suitably maintain the contribution of the site to its context within the Bell Common Conservation Area. It would cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset including that of its setting.”

“(2) By reason of its excessive scale, the proposed extension in combination with the existing extensions and outbuildings would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the original dwelling and would therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is by, definition harmful to the Green Belt.”

Minutes