EPPING FOREST: Protests at homes plan gather pace

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Campaigners who are against development surrounding Chigwell Campaigners who are against development surrounding Chigwell

PROTESTS are gathering strength as the news of plans for an estimated 10,000 homes in the district spreads.

A series of exhibitions is being held by Epping Forest District Council in an attempt to explain a 160-page consultation on exactly where the homes should go, as part of its Local Plan.

People in Chigwell, who say their village would effectively double in size if all the plots put forward in the consultation are built on, are holding a protest outside the exhibition there tonight.

Sue Lloyd, of the Chigwell Residents’ Association, said: “We must let the council know how strongly we oppose these plans before it is too late and all our green spaces have been built over.

“Chigwell’s infrastructure could not cope with a doubling in the number of residents.”

Plots of land around the village being put forward for possible development include Farmland off Hainault Road, fields near Vicarage Lane and space opposite the Bluebell restaurant in the High Road and the Metropolitan Police Sports Club, also in the High Road.

Harry Singh, 28, of Forest Lane, plays for a Sunday league football team at the club, said: “A lot of us are in uproar about this.

“If this was developed on, we would have to go out of the area. After the Olympics, we’ve seen a lot more people get involved in sport there.”

Waltham Abbey Residents’ Association has vowed to boycott the consultation over the plans.

Chairwoman Sue Calvert said: “This consultation is a biased document – we are not being given the option to say no.”

The association is worried that one option for how housing should be distributed across the district over the next 20 years would see just over half of it built in the town.

“Waltham Abbey stands to receive 51.7 per cent of all of Epping Forest District Council’s housing needs for the district if all of the sites go ahead,” said Mrs Calvert. “People don’t want it.”

The group staged a protest outside the Local Plan meeting in Waltham Abbey Town Hall last week and is drafting its own response document.

Exhibitions on the Local Plan are due to be held from 5pm to 9pm on the following dates and venues:

  • Tonight at the Chigwell Parish Council offices in Hainault Road, Chigwell
  • Tuesday, September 25 at Ongar Town Council’s offices in Banson’s Way
  • Wednesday, September 26 at Theydon Bois Village Hall in Coppice Row
  • Thursday, September 27 at North Weald Village Hall’s lounge in the High Road

Click here to follow the Epping Forest Guardian on Twitter

Click here to follow the Epping Forest Guardian on Facebook

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:08pm Thu 20 Sep 12

G. Robertson says...

This would completely destroy Chigwell and shows that Camerons "Localism" was just playing to voters and didn't mean a thing (in fact was a downright lie!)
This would completely destroy Chigwell and shows that Camerons "Localism" was just playing to voters and didn't mean a thing (in fact was a downright lie!) G. Robertson
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Thu 20 Sep 12

word of mouth says...

NIMBYs these places can't stay little villages forever. The population is growing and needs to live somewhere.
NIMBYs these places can't stay little villages forever. The population is growing and needs to live somewhere. word of mouth
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Heexagone says...

word of mouth wrote:
NIMBYs these places can't stay little villages forever. The population is growing and needs to live somewhere.
There is nothing remotely village-like about Chigwell - it's a suburb and the so called green belt at risk comprises scrubby neglected fields. All of the people objecting live in houses built on the green belt of yesteryear and are wasting their time objecting to Councillors who don't care and a council that just wants to please a government that wants to see every field built over to house immigrants living on benefits.
[quote][p][bold]word of mouth[/bold] wrote: NIMBYs these places can't stay little villages forever. The population is growing and needs to live somewhere.[/p][/quote]There is nothing remotely village-like about Chigwell - it's a suburb and the so called green belt at risk comprises scrubby neglected fields. All of the people objecting live in houses built on the green belt of yesteryear and are wasting their time objecting to Councillors who don't care and a council that just wants to please a government that wants to see every field built over to house immigrants living on benefits. Heexagone
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Thu 20 Sep 12

ruby newbie says...

I live just off of Manford Way,yes its in redbridge but it seems to me as if the epping forest council is chucking all of its planning quota down this end of its borough,there are more flats to be built next to the excel nursing home on manor road,58 homes planned for the old jennykings garden centre,plus the new flats on the bald hind site and another block ajacent but behind the bald hind too this one fronts onto manor road,now i cannot see how the borough is expecting Manor Road to cope with the traffic that this will create and the flats that look like a swiss alps hotel (old manor hall)have not all siold and this one took about 4 years to complete.stop it before its too late and the boroughs finances are not able to cope with looking after the new tenants just like the one i live in(redbridge) and also i am going to report ya to the architect police for some of the desgins of the blocks.horrific!just loke those in your council who allow them to be built.your embarrasing.
I live just off of Manford Way,yes its in redbridge but it seems to me as if the epping forest council is chucking all of its planning quota down this end of its borough,there are more flats to be built next to the excel nursing home on manor road,58 homes planned for the old jennykings garden centre,plus the new flats on the bald hind site and another block ajacent but behind the bald hind too this one fronts onto manor road,now i cannot see how the borough is expecting Manor Road to cope with the traffic that this will create and the flats that look like a swiss alps hotel (old manor hall)have not all siold and this one took about 4 years to complete.stop it before its too late and the boroughs finances are not able to cope with looking after the new tenants just like the one i live in(redbridge) and also i am going to report ya to the architect police for some of the desgins of the blocks.horrific!just loke those in your council who allow them to be built.your embarrasing. ruby newbie
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Thu 20 Sep 12

ann marston says...

I have just seen the plans to turn Waltham Abbey into concrete .Epping Forest District Council has always treated our town with complete disregard when it comes to dumping things on. I cant believe that Upshire and King Harold School fields, Gunpowder Park and the main car park in the town are all targets for more than our fair share of this housing why none in Loughton they have the huge expanse of land at Roding Valley and they pay less council tax.
I have just seen the plans to turn Waltham Abbey into concrete .Epping Forest District Council has always treated our town with complete disregard when it comes to dumping things on. I cant believe that Upshire and King Harold School fields, Gunpowder Park and the main car park in the town are all targets for more than our fair share of this housing why none in Loughton they have the huge expanse of land at Roding Valley and they pay less council tax. ann marston
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Sun 23 Sep 12

The Marmite Llama says...

Heexagone wrote:
word of mouth wrote:
NIMBYs these places can't stay little villages forever. The population is growing and needs to live somewhere.
There is nothing remotely village-like about Chigwell - it's a suburb and the so called green belt at risk comprises scrubby neglected fields. All of the people objecting live in houses built on the green belt of yesteryear and are wasting their time objecting to Councillors who don't care and a council that just wants to please a government that wants to see every field built over to house immigrants living on benefits.
The above comment, and that quoted within it, demonstrate the dangers of speaking without adequate knowledge of the topic in question. Chigwell is indeed a village, as should be obvious to even the blindest of observers (see the numerous signs announcing the boundaries of "Chigwell Village") and the least intelligent individuals (surely even the illiterate can ask a friend to look up the term "village" in a dictionary or wikipedia). It may be a suburb of Greater London, but it is also a village: these are not mutually exclusive terms. It is one of the most beautiful areas in the already picturesque county of Essex, and it should be allowed to stay that way. The farmlands and meadows contribute greatly to this aesthetic, and they should not be decimated by over-eager property developers. Green belt and conservation land exist for a reason, and that is to protect our green spaces. Why must we pave them over?

People do indeed need homes in which to live, but why not build more in Harlow, a town originally conceived for this purpose? Why not indeed?
[quote][p][bold]Heexagone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]word of mouth[/bold] wrote: NIMBYs these places can't stay little villages forever. The population is growing and needs to live somewhere.[/p][/quote]There is nothing remotely village-like about Chigwell - it's a suburb and the so called green belt at risk comprises scrubby neglected fields. All of the people objecting live in houses built on the green belt of yesteryear and are wasting their time objecting to Councillors who don't care and a council that just wants to please a government that wants to see every field built over to house immigrants living on benefits.[/p][/quote]The above comment, and that quoted within it, demonstrate the dangers of speaking without adequate knowledge of the topic in question. Chigwell is indeed a village, as should be obvious to even the blindest of observers (see the numerous signs [erected by the council currently trying to destroy the village] announcing the boundaries of "Chigwell Village") and the least intelligent individuals (surely even the illiterate can ask a friend to look up the term "village" in a dictionary or wikipedia). It may be a suburb of Greater London, but it is also a village: these are not mutually exclusive terms. It is one of the most beautiful areas in the already picturesque county of Essex, and it should be allowed to stay that way. The farmlands and meadows contribute greatly to this aesthetic, and they should not be decimated by over-eager property developers. Green belt and conservation land exist for a reason, and that is to protect our green spaces. Why must we pave them over? People do indeed need homes in which to live, but why not build more in Harlow, a town originally conceived for this purpose? Why not indeed? The Marmite Llama
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Mon 24 Sep 12

anotherresident says...

ann marston wrote:
I have just seen the plans to turn Waltham Abbey into concrete .Epping Forest District Council has always treated our town with complete disregard when it comes to dumping things on. I cant believe that Upshire and King Harold School fields, Gunpowder Park and the main car park in the town are all targets for more than our fair share of this housing why none in Loughton they have the huge expanse of land at Roding Valley and they pay less council tax.
Roding Valley is indeed a big expanse of land. It is also a flood plain. That floods. It spent a good chunk of this year underwater. Not sure what the Council Tax has to do with where housing should be built.

Some of the stuff in the planning document is clearly nonsense just there to be rejected - moving all the schools onto green belt to free up the land in the towns for example.

In the end there will be more housing so we need to come up with better suggestions than why not build it on the flood plain.
[quote][p][bold]ann marston[/bold] wrote: I have just seen the plans to turn Waltham Abbey into concrete .Epping Forest District Council has always treated our town with complete disregard when it comes to dumping things on. I cant believe that Upshire and King Harold School fields, Gunpowder Park and the main car park in the town are all targets for more than our fair share of this housing why none in Loughton they have the huge expanse of land at Roding Valley and they pay less council tax.[/p][/quote]Roding Valley is indeed a big expanse of land. It is also a flood plain. That floods. It spent a good chunk of this year underwater. Not sure what the Council Tax has to do with where housing should be built. Some of the stuff in the planning document is clearly nonsense just there to be rejected - moving all the schools onto green belt to free up the land in the towns for example. In the end there will be more housing so we need to come up with better suggestions than why not build it on the flood plain. anotherresident
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Heexagone says...

The Marmite Llama wrote:
Heexagone wrote:
word of mouth wrote:
NIMBYs these places can't stay little villages forever. The population is growing and needs to live somewhere.
There is nothing remotely village-like about Chigwell - it's a suburb and the so called green belt at risk comprises scrubby neglected fields. All of the people objecting live in houses built on the green belt of yesteryear and are wasting their time objecting to Councillors who don't care and a council that just wants to please a government that wants to see every field built over to house immigrants living on benefits.
The above comment, and that quoted within it, demonstrate the dangers of speaking without adequate knowledge of the topic in question. Chigwell is indeed a village, as should be obvious to even the blindest of observers (see the numerous signs announcing the boundaries of "Chigwell Village") and the least intelligent individuals (surely even the illiterate can ask a friend to look up the term "village" in a dictionary or wikipedia). It may be a suburb of Greater London, but it is also a village: these are not mutually exclusive terms. It is one of the most beautiful areas in the already picturesque county of Essex, and it should be allowed to stay that way. The farmlands and meadows contribute greatly to this aesthetic, and they should not be decimated by over-eager property developers. Green belt and conservation land exist for a reason, and that is to protect our green spaces. Why must we pave them over?

People do indeed need homes in which to live, but why not build more in Harlow, a town originally conceived for this purpose? Why not indeed?
If signs are the criteria then Grange Hill is a village as is Chigwell Row - I think you'll find that the local signs mark electoral wards.
[quote][p][bold]The Marmite Llama[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Heexagone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]word of mouth[/bold] wrote: NIMBYs these places can't stay little villages forever. The population is growing and needs to live somewhere.[/p][/quote]There is nothing remotely village-like about Chigwell - it's a suburb and the so called green belt at risk comprises scrubby neglected fields. All of the people objecting live in houses built on the green belt of yesteryear and are wasting their time objecting to Councillors who don't care and a council that just wants to please a government that wants to see every field built over to house immigrants living on benefits.[/p][/quote]The above comment, and that quoted within it, demonstrate the dangers of speaking without adequate knowledge of the topic in question. Chigwell is indeed a village, as should be obvious to even the blindest of observers (see the numerous signs [erected by the council currently trying to destroy the village] announcing the boundaries of "Chigwell Village") and the least intelligent individuals (surely even the illiterate can ask a friend to look up the term "village" in a dictionary or wikipedia). It may be a suburb of Greater London, but it is also a village: these are not mutually exclusive terms. It is one of the most beautiful areas in the already picturesque county of Essex, and it should be allowed to stay that way. The farmlands and meadows contribute greatly to this aesthetic, and they should not be decimated by over-eager property developers. Green belt and conservation land exist for a reason, and that is to protect our green spaces. Why must we pave them over? People do indeed need homes in which to live, but why not build more in Harlow, a town originally conceived for this purpose? Why not indeed?[/p][/quote]If signs are the criteria then Grange Hill is a village as is Chigwell Row - I think you'll find that the local signs mark electoral wards. Heexagone
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Tue 25 Sep 12

Bernard 87 says...

Chigwell is a large village no matter how suburban it appears in places. Driving into Chigwell from Loughton or Abridge highlights how much green belt is contained with Chigwells borders and it would be a shame if a large part of that is lost to more houses. Grange Hill is a suburb of Chigwell while Chigwell Row is certainly another village. I do not think all three places are suitable for more housing although I do think that if Epping Forest has to have housing it should be contained to small developments on the edge of the larger towns. By that I don't mean whole new unaffordable estates but good sized family homes for local people that are cheap to build. What you cannot do it start concreting over the parts of the district closest to London such as Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill, Sewardstone and Waltham Abbey.
Chigwell is a large village no matter how suburban it appears in places. Driving into Chigwell from Loughton or Abridge highlights how much green belt is contained with Chigwells borders and it would be a shame if a large part of that is lost to more houses. Grange Hill is a suburb of Chigwell while Chigwell Row is certainly another village. I do not think all three places are suitable for more housing although I do think that if Epping Forest has to have housing it should be contained to small developments on the edge of the larger towns. By that I don't mean whole new unaffordable estates but good sized family homes for local people that are cheap to build. What you cannot do it start concreting over the parts of the district closest to London such as Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill, Sewardstone and Waltham Abbey. Bernard 87
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

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