In the fourth of a series of articles documenting the development of Wanstead’s Evergreen Field, Geoff Horsnell revisits the entire development cycle, from initial application to the halting of work and design amendments
The current application for Evergreen Field was submitted in 2023. As the plan involved more than a single dwelling, the Redbridge planning department declared it a ‘major application’. To all intents and purposes, this meant greater care should be taken when processing the various plans and documents, or so one might believe.
The application attracted a large number of comments – both objections and letters of support – and it was not until April 2025 that a decision was reached to accept the proposal. Attached to this decision were a total of 41 conditions. Some of these conditions simply stated things such as “work should begin within three years of the decision date.” However, a number of these conditions required an answer before the site could even be cleared, let alone for building to commence.
Over the weeks and months since then, various amendments were submitted to address these primary conditions. Various surveys were undertaken by different specialist firms to detail the biodiversity of the site; how the drainage would be managed; which trees needed to be felled and which could remain, and so on. Some of these reports contained errors; others were better presented, so that, to date, only a small proportion of the amendments have been approved. At the same time, the developers started work before some of the reports had even been submitted, leading to Redbridge enforcement halting the site work in June. At the time of writing, work has still not restarted.
The latest amendment to be submitted (amendment 14) is the most worrisome of all. It consists of some 22 plans and documents with a covering letter that admits a number of standard building regulations have not been followed. In order to fully comply with these regulations, a significant amount of redesign has to take place. The 22 documents and plans are rather technical, but include things such as party wall thickness and window size and lay out the detail of the various changes required. Given this is supposed to be a ‘major development application’, it does not show the developers in a good or professional light. Indeed, not even the Redbridge planning department have emerged with a spotless track record here. For such a major development, the planning department should have spotted the document errors and incorrect rules and regulations and been more focused and aware when dealing with the developers, architects and builders.
Perhaps there is even more to come to light here. It’s a case of ‘watch this space!’
For more information on the Evergreen Field development plans and to view the full application, visit wnstd.com/field
