Loughton Town Council object to plans for third Sainsbury's

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Local residents and buisnesses are unhappy about plans proposed for a Sainsbury's local and six flats on the old Church Hill Car Park in Loughton. Local residents and buisnesses are unhappy about plans proposed for a Sainsbury's local and six flats on the old Church Hill Car Park in Loughton.

A proposed third Sainsbury’s store in Loughton should not go ahead, according to the town council.

Anderson Group has been commissioned to build the store, along with flats, on a disused car park between The Plume of Feathers and the Shell petrol station in Church Hill, Loughton.

The Loughton Town Council meeting on Monday saw a large public turn out, with two members of the group Residents Against The Third Sainsbury’s (RATTS) speaking against the plan.

Chairman of the Loughton Town Council planning committee, Jill Angold-Stephens, said: “A large number of people turned up and the members of the council debated it.

“We ended up objecting and it will now go on to Epping Forest District Council Planning South.

“There were a number of issues raised, the first and main being highway safety.

“To enter, the Sainsbury’s lorries would have to cross over the front of the pub, The Plume of Feathers, and to exit they would need to leave where cars enter the Esso petrol station.

It’s an accident waiting to happen.

“The road is already busy, it will become heavily congested, we are really concerned.”
The area is currently served by several convenience stores and three existing supermarkets within a mile’s walk, two of which are Sainsbury’s.

Epping Forest District Council has said the earliest opportunity for a meeting to make the decision will be September 3, but a final date will be confirmed  by August 16.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree