Waltham Forest News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


CHINGFORD: Controversial flats plan approved

members of the WHRA before last nights' meeting members of the WHRA before last nights' meeting

A CONTROVERSIAL plan to build flats near homes has been approved despite objections from neighbours.

London & Quadrant (L&Q) was given permission to create 54 flats in four-storey blocks and seven houses on the site of the former Walton House care home in Chingford mount Road, Chingford, by Waltham Forest Council’s planning committee on Tuesday (February 7).

The Walton House Resident’s Association (WHRA) was formed to fight the plans and have campaigned for changes to the design and density of the development.

It claims the plan would compromise security and privacy for nearby homes and was out of keeping with the area.

The planning committee approved the plan by four votes to three. Members voted along party lines, with Labour’s majority proving decisive.

Tory councillor Jemma Hemstead, who spoke in support of WHRA at the meeting, said: “These flats do not match the town character.

“L&Q should work with the residents instead of fighting against them. There are no other buildings in that area that are four-storeys. It’s just unsuitable.”

However, Labour committee chairman Cllr Peter Barnett said the development would have a positive impact. He said: “I think this is a good development, with a very good report from the planning officers. There is no reason that this can’t be a good thing for the area.”

Nannette Higgins, WHRA co-chairwoman, reacted angrily to the decision and strongly disagreed with Cllr Barnett’s assessment.

She said: “I pay £1500 council tax, and the value of my house is about to drop by £100,000.

“These flats are just unsuitable and not in keeping with the area. We will now look to appeal because this is really going to affect the lives of the people in the area.”

Jamie Dalton, L&Q land manager, said: “We have compromised with WHRA and provided privacy with higher fencing.

"We have listened to the concerns expressed by neighbours and we are confident that this will not affect them badly, and will in fact enhance the community as a whole.”

Comments(7)

bishbosh says...
11:17pm Tue 7 Feb 12

So thats another 54 cheap and not so cheerful flats plus a few houses crammed in. Rents start at £650 per month and increased council tax income to WF of about £50k per month doubled by the government for six years. WF have just paid themselves over £6 million. As Councillor Pye suggested if you dont like it go and live in Surrey. L and Q have listened and not heard.

mad-dog says...
11:46am Wed 8 Feb 12

Yet another LBWF council sponsored PUG ( pop up ghetto ), cram them in stack em high all over the borough, great, if its green or brown build on it, its already built on, smash it down and raise it.

mdj says...
12:23pm Wed 8 Feb 12

'a very good report from the planning officers..'
This is a very loaded phrase. Large developers have the resources to enter into prolonged pre-application negotiations with officers to help ensure that their schemes go through. In a good sense this helps ensure that proposals will comply with local planning guidelines. But sometimes the result is that at the hearing it is impossible to tell who is the applicant and who is the planning officer: it can be seen as a method of suborning the scrutiny process, and needs to be treated warily. Once the planning officer is on board, it is much harder for the Councillors to turn an application down, as in this case.
Thanks to bishbosh for pointing out the Council's financial motivation to degrade our neighbourhoods: it does at least confer a gruesome logic on the process.

bishbosh says...
1:28pm Wed 8 Feb 12

Watch this space over the Stow. Do the sums. I personally hope for the sake of local democracy it ends up in a judicial review.

rainy8llorraine says...
8:21am Thu 9 Feb 12

Just wanted to say although I do not live in Chingford I live in Grange Hill Chigwell I sympathise with the WHRA as we are suffering the exact same building issues as them. We currently have 6 blocks of flats in Manor Road plus another 2 lots of flats currently being built in Manor Road and then on top of that the council have approved a development of approx 69 houses also in Manor Road, some of which are affordable, there was a large campaign to stop it, but as in your case the local residents have been totally ignored and over ruled and as you said before we put these people in there jobs and they should be on the side of the residents not the planners who don't even live in the area. Ask the Councillors concerned if they would like all these developments near there homes and you know what the answer would be.

rainy8llorraine says...
10:49am Thu 9 Feb 12

Just read the local paper and there is an article about the development of 69 houses and flats due to built in Manor Road Chigwell. The developer is now trying to go back on his parking plan instead of it being underground he wants it at ground level and reduce the number of spaces, he has already gone back on his decision to fund the Grange Hill post office. What a joke and I suppose he will get away with it. The parking is already terrible in the Grange Hill area with people parking for the station can you imagine what it is going to be like with the added cars from these new houses and flats. It's nothing new for a developer to get permission for building and then apply retrospectively. Why do the council not say NO?

mdj says...
2:23pm Sun 12 Feb 12

It's interesting to see by contrast in this week's paper version of the WfG that an application in Chingford to replace a block of garages with five flats was refused because the 'size and bulk' of the design would 'have an adverse effect on the neighbourhood'.
Perhaps the applicant did not engage in sufficient prior consultation with the officers.

click2find

Most popular






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