Issued: May 11, 2017
Town council to object to retirement apartments "in the strongest
Epping Town Council is to object "in the strongest possible terms" to plans for a 28-bedroom sheltered retirement housing scheme at Stonards Hill.
Churchill Retirement Living has drawn up plans to demolish three houses - 1, 3 and 5 Stonards Hill - and build the development of 19 one-bedroom and nine two-bedroom apartments with 12 parking spaces on the site.
The town council's objections include concerns over "inadequate" parking and issues regarding overdevelopment, overshadowing, the height of the proposed development and the loss of large family houses.
Councillor Tony Church told Tuesday's planning and general purposes committee: "That (the proposed development) really will be dominate. It is overdevelopment, and we all know about the parking issues in Epping."
He said Epping needed a mix of properties which meant keeping some larger houses, such as the ones earmarked for demolition.
Committee chairman Nigel Avey said: "We do have a lack of this type of housing in Epping but I stand by my comments that I think this (proposed development) is not right for the site."
He also voiced concerns that the Stonards Hill recreation ground car park would become an "overflow" car park for the residents and visitors of the retirement development.
He said the council's objections should be made "in the strongest possible terms".
Richard Billingham, who lives opposite the site, told the meeting: "This is truly a huge building. It will dominate the surround areas in Stonards Hill and Palmers Hill. There are 28 flats plus one warden.
"Twenty-eight flats may not generate 28 cars but if this is a retirement development they will have carers and relatives coming to the site. Where will the people park?"
He also questioned whether an ambulance would be able to get onto the site and added: "One thing is certain, you won't get a refuse truck in there so that will be blocking the road."
He added: "I don't object to the principal but what I do object to is the scale and size. It's too dense for the site and I would suggest the site size makes it unsuitable.
"A building of this size would fit much better on a bigger site."
Another resident, Simon Liggins - who also lives opposite the site - said: "We have no issue with the concept however the proposed development is enormous; overbearing."
He added the proposals "would totally destroy the street scene".
A final decision will be taken by the district council.