Agenda item

The Principal Development Management Officer (PDMO), Be First Development Management Team, introduced a report on an application from Be First for a detailed planning permission for Phase 1- erection of buildings ranging between 3 & 6 storeys (Plots 1,2 & 3) comprising 81 residential units (Use Class C3) and 181 sqm (GEA) of non-residential floorspace (Use Class D1), open space and public realm, parking and cycle parking, plant, other associated works, and associated infrastructure (Plot 4); and outline planning permission for Phase 2, comprising outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for the erection of buildings made up of 219 residential units (Use Class C3), up to 300 sqm (GEA) of flexible floorspace for residential use (Use Class C3) or non-residential use (Use Class D1), open space and public realm, means of pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, car and cycle parking, and associated works, at Padnall Lake, Padnall Road, Romford RM6 5ER.

Following the publication of the agenda an addendum report was subsequently published and presented, and which provided an update to the Heads of Terms in relation to play space contributions and the submission of a monitored travel plan, additional consultation responses from TfL in conjunction with the GLA Stage 1 report, further objector representations, together with updates to the main report to correct formatting errors.

In addition to internal and internal consultations, a total of 1927 letters were sent to neighbouring properties together with the requisite statutory site and press notices. A total of 38 objections were received together with 2 petitions containing 213 and 301 signatures respectively. The officer comments on the responses to the consultation were contained in the planning assessment detailed in the reports.

A total of four objectors presented representations at the meeting including a Chadwell Heath ward councillor Simon Perry. The principle issues of objection raised were: 

·  Increased traffic and parking congestion, including a proposal from the ward councillor for the applicant to commit to funding the cost of residential permits for a proposed CPZ in the locality for 12 months,

·  Inappropriate design and massing,

·  Loss of open space/nature conservation and the protection of biodiversity 

·  Impact on neighbouring amenity including privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight,

·  Impact on public transport capacity, school places and medical facilities,

·  Lack of retail provision to meet the needs of the local community, 

·  Road access,

·  Noise and pollution,

·  Air Quality. In this respect one of the objectors presented an independent air quality review as set out in full in the addendum report, and which challenged the validity of the assessment presented as part of the application, 

·  Environmental considerations including the risk of increased flooding, as well as the future management of Padnall Lake,

·  Community involvement, and

·  Consultation process

Responding to the objections officers from Be First Planning Consultancy (on behalf of the applicant) supported by architectural, transport and environmental planning consultants, addressed each of the principle points raised by objectors, providing a summary of evidence and supportive documentation which was set out in full in the reports as presented.

Reference was made to the significant consultation that had been ongoing with residents and local stakeholders since December 2019, and which had directly influenced the design of the proposed development including landscaping, play areas, ecological enhancements, pedestrian connectivity, community floorspace and the mix of housing which included a focus on family sized accommodation, and which made up 44% of the total units in Phase 1. Following concerns raised by the ward councillor, clarification was provided as to the increased number of residential units which would be built across the two phases of development. It was noted that the larger proportion of residential units would be built in the second phase, which had been presented as an outline application, and which if approved, would be subject to a future separate reserved matters application, which would involve a further consultation process.

A comprehensive open space assessment concluded that the site did not fall within a site of importance for nature conservation and the loss of designated open space would not result in a deficiency in local park provision. The quality of open space in this location was deemed poor with no formal play provision or seating and little ecological value. Consequently, the development offered significant improvements in these areas. There were also planned biodiversity enhancements and a new landscaping provision, together with measures to improve noise and air quality.

In respect to the latter, whilst acknowledging the findings of an independent assessment, the applicant was satisfied that the methodology and conclusions drawn from its own air quality assessment carried out independently by environmental consultants, were robust and in line with both regional and local policy guidance. That said the applicant had offered, and the local planning authority had accepted, additional measures as detailed to mitigate against any reduction in air quality that might arise as a result of the development.

The applicant then addressed matters of transport including car parking, for which through a condition they were prepared to make a financial contribution to the provision of a CPZ , and enhancements to public transport provision, in respect to the latter of which discussions were ongoing with TfL concerning a financial contribution of up to £300,000 towards the cost of additional bus services in the area.

Other matters covered in the applicant’s response concerned flooding with the area designated low risk (flood zone 1), and finally in respect to the provision of school places reference was made to the impact to existing education provision as set out in planning report, and specifically the use of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies directed by the local authority to cater for identifiable infrastructure needs. 

Officers concluded that bringing forward a 100% housing scheme on the site was acceptable in principle. This had been carefully balanced against the loss of designated open space which was contrary to policy. However, the applicant had committed to deliver significant landscape and biodiversity works with a commitment to providing off-site contributions to the improvements of two local parks within the catchment area.

In response to a question about whether there was sufficient size within the development to provide for the open space provision set out in the proposals, the applicant explained that the open space provision in Phase 1 has been verified through ordnance survey and would therefore be achieved. In relation to the outline components in Phase 2, there was a control called a perimeter plan which set out the dimensions for the detailed landscaping design and which the applicant was committed to build out through this application 

Taking all the above into account, the proposal had been found to be acceptable following careful consideration of the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations.

Members were satisfied that any potential material harm in terms of the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area would reasonably be mitigated through compliance with the listed conditions and associated legal agreement, and therefore,

The Committee resolved to:

1.  Agree the reasons for approval as set out in this report,

2. Delegate authority to the Director of Inclusive Growth (or other authorised

  Officer) in consultation with LBBD Legal Services to grant planning

  permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, the

  completion of a Unilateral Undertaking under S106 of the Town and

  Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), based on the Heads of Terms

  identified at Appendix 7 of the report as amended in the addendum report,

  and the Conditions listed at Appendix 6 of the report; and

3. That, if by 30 May 2021 the legal agreement has not been completed, the

  Director of Inclusive Growth (or other authorised Officer) had delegated

  authority to refuse planning permission or extend this timeframe to grant

  approval.