Agenda item

The Principal Development Management Officer (PDMO), Be First Development Management Team introduced a report on an application seeking a planning permission at Chadwell Heath Baptist Church and adjacent land at 76 High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford. The proposal sought to retain the Church's façade, demolish remaining premises and construction of a new church building with associated Community uses and 17 residential units (Use Class C3) comprising buildings of 2-4 storeys.

In addition to internal and external consultations, a total of 534 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties together with the requisite statutory press notice. A total of four objections were received, two of which were included in a supplementary report, the full material planning considerations relating to which were set out in the planning assessment detailed both in the committee report and the subsequent supplementary report, the latter of which included a response to concerns expressed over the consultation process in relation to properties in Eric Road.

A local ward councillor spoke on behalf of the three Whalebone councillors in full support of the development, citing the vital role played by the Baptist Church in providing services to vulnerable residents and the wider community. They referred to comments previously expressed about the scale of the development, housing mix and car parking, and placed on record their appreciation of the positive approach taken by the Church to adapt their scheme to address the concerns of both ward members and the local community. That said the ward councillors would continue to work closely with the Church and the community to resolve any future issues that may arise. 

Two registered speakers opposing the application addressed the Committee. In summary their concerns were:

-  The development would impact on their privacy and quality of life insofar as it would overlook both adjoining properties and gardens in Eric Road.

-  The scale, density and layout of the development was inappropriate for the surrounding area.

-  Lack of consultation, and particular concerns about the validity of the statutory consultation seeing that properties in Eric Road did not appear to receive either the notification letter issued by Be First, nor a leaflet about the proposals circulated by the Church.

The PDMO maintained that the local Planning Authority’s statutory duties had been fulfilled through the 534 letters sent out to surrounding properties together with the requisite press advert dated 23September 2020, a copy of which was set out in the supplementary report, which also included the list of the of neighbouring properties consulted on Eric Road. 

-  Lack of available parking.

-  The development would result in more people living in the area, creating additional demands and congestion, coupled with the fact that there was already little available green space and play areas for local children.

The applicant stated that they had considered the possibility of creating a play space at the expense of an element of the housing provision but had concluded that financially it was not viable for the overall development and that that the area already benefitted from a large space at the nearby St Chads Park. 

In addition to the public representations further questions arose about the application which were addressed by the PDMO and the applicant including the proposed % and mix of affordable housing and the mechanism to secure the affordable units, projected rental costs, the importance of retaining the church façade in keeping with the traditional appearance of the building and the arrangements for the shared use of the amenity/garden space within the development.

In conclusion following careful consideration of the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations, officers found the proposal to be acceptable. They 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 the report; and

2.  Delegate authority to the Director of Inclusive Growth (or authorised Panning Officer) in consultation with the Head of Legal Services to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) based on the Heads of Terms identified at Appendix 7 and the conditions listed in Appendix 6 of the report; and

3.  That, if by 26 October 2021 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Director of Inclusive Growth (or authorised Planning Officer) was delegated authority to refuse planning permission or extend this timeframe to grant approval.