Mill Mound Fields: A “Consultation” That Looks More Like a Fast‑Track Land Grab
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
Wates have dropped a flier on residents’ doorsteps announcing a proposed development at Mill Mound Fields, delivered on 22 May 2026 with a response deadline of 6 June — a deliberately tight two‑week window that limits meaningful public engagement. The leaflet calls the site “land South of Stonards Hill”, even though, as the document states, it is “more widely known as MMF and perhaps more correctly ‘land West of Stonards Hill’” .
When a consultation begins with mislabelling the land, it sets the tone for everything that follows.
Wates describe this as a “public” consultation, yet the flier was not widely circulated, not shared on local media, and no public meeting has been offered. As the document notes, “how and when will results be published – or is this just another box‑tick exercise?” . If transparency is lacking from the outset, a Freedom of Information request may be the only way residents ever see the results.
The proposal for “about 125 houses” raises immediate red flags. The document rightly questions whether such a low density is even viable or whether residents should expect “mission‑creep” later . The promised 50% affordable housing exceeds EFDC’s 40% requirement, but developers routinely plead “feasibility” later and reduce commitments — sometimes to zero. Worse, the affordable units appear clustered in the northwest corner, not integrated across the site, undermining social cohesion.
The flier’s map shows Old Pastures as already built, despite it being only a proposal. As the document asks, “is this done to give the impression of infill?” . In reality, this is a Green Belt incursion, beyond the established edge of town, and not part of the EFDC Local Plan. Meanwhile, the South Epping development — which is in the Local Plan — remains unbuilt. Why is an unallocated Green Belt site being pushed ahead of approved land?
The leaflet leans heavily on warm, vague language “green”, “community”, “public” yet these qualities already apply to MMF. The document is blunt: “‘Some people use the space informally’ – incorrect: many people use the area and have done so for many well‑documented years.” The proposal offers nothing residents don’t already have, and it fails to mention ecological standards, public transport access, or sustainable design.
The statement that “access is not guaranteed” reads like a thinly veiled threat. Wates have previously attempted to restrict access, including via the “horse‑keeping” route. As the document notes, “Access could be guaranteed very quickly if these developers granted some Public Rights of Ways, or Permissive Paths.” A Public Right of Way application is already underway, and all other applications should be paused until it is resolved.
The map itself is confusing by design: seven similar shades of green/grey/blue, making it difficult to distinguish key features. Access symbols are unclear. The only vehicular access is from Stonards Hill, yet the key symbol is oversized — potentially downplaying the risks of a single entry/exit point. As the document warns, this could create a “Church Langley” scenario, where one incident blocks the entire estate .
Traffic concerns are serious. The proposed access sits on a sloping, speed‑unrestricted lane, near the Old Pastures junction. Visibility issues, existing congestion at Stonards/High Road, and increased rat‑running through Theydon Grove all need to be considered cumulatively, especially with three other nearby developments feeding traffic into the area. The consultation’s talk of “traffic mitigation” is meaningless when the plan adds more cars and more pressure.
Environmental claims are equally weak. One housing area sits beside known badger setts and across a likely badger route. Several water features are shown, yet Wates’ own planning documents claim there is “no flood risk” — despite residents knowing that parts of MMF remain damp year‑round. The document highlights this contradiction clearly: “Those of us who walk MMF know that some lower patches are damp or wetter all year.”
There is no mention of schools, medical facilities, or tube capacity. Even modest developments add pressure to already overstretched services. Recent NHS letters confirm that without investment, further development is unsustainable.
The consultation website is clear enough, though the map contains discrepancies. The questionnaire is short and includes a free‑text box for comments. Residents can respond at:
The document ends with a simple call to action: “We would urge you to view the flier / proposals, and to respond to the feedback form offered.”
This development is not a done deal — but it will be if residents stay silent. Now is the moment to push back.
Click here to read are article about the NHS view.
Comments