Agenda item

 

This report before Members detailed a planning application for the redevelopment of the site to provide 620 residential units with 830sqm of commercial floorspace in buildings extending to between 4 and 8 storeys in height together with associated car and cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and infrastructure works.

 

This application was reported to the Committee because it was for a major development within Romford.

 

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s agent.

 

The objector commented that he was representing the Romford Civic Society who opposed the planned development. The objector also commented that the site would be poorly accessed due to the existing road layout which formed the gateway into the town centre. The objector also commented that the proposal had not really moved on from the proposal submitted last year and that nothing had been done to reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed buildings. The objector concluded by commenting that the quality of the buildings would be the same as had been delivered in the 1911 and 1936 Romford Garden Suburb in Gidea Park and asked what specific mechanisms would be put in place to achieve this.

 

In response the applicant’s agent commented that he welcomed the officer’s recommendation for approval. The agent also commented that the applicant had worked hard with officers to address the massing and density issues and had also worked hard to address the need for affordable housing and that the proposal offered more affordable provision than what was required. The agent concluded by commenting that the proposal was an exciting opportunity on an under utilised brownfield site which was also offering commercial and healthcare provision.

 

With its agreement Councillors Viddy Persaud and Robert Benham addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Persaud commented that she was opposed to the proposal as it represented an over development of the site which would impact on future residents amenity. Councillor Persaud concluded by commenting that the site would become a congested area which would impact on visitors to the Queen’s Hospital.

 

Councillor Benham commented that although the Council needed to provide more housing it should not be provided at all costs and that the borough had a greater need for three and four bedroom provision. Councillor Benham also commented that the design of the proposal was cramped and due to extra vehicular travel on the site already poor air quality would be made worse. Councillor Benham concluded by commenting that there appeared to be a lack of affordable housing and that he was surprised the Highway’s officers had not submitted an objection as the site was already congested by hospital visitors both by car and bus.

 

During the debate Members sought and received clarification on a number of points including traffic impact on the roundabout at Rom Valley Way and Oldchurch Road, noise assessment on helicopters using the helipad at the Queen’s Hospital and transport assessments on the area.

 

Members considered the report noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution and RESOLVED that the application was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following obligations by 21 August 2018 and in the event that the Section 106 agreement was not completed by such date the application would be refused.

 

The application was subject to referral to Mayor of London at Stage 2.

 

All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.  The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the Legal Agreement prior to the completion of the agreement irrespective of whether the agreement was completed.

 

Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement. 

 

Heads of terms:

 

Affordable Housing

 

§  11% of units (67.No. units) as Affordable;

§  Tenure split 57% affordable rent and 43% intermediate shared ownership, the housing option in terms of affordable rent is the London affordable rent.

§  Review mechanisms at stages of the development and benchmark values/return to be agreed in consultation with GLA;

 

Education

 

§  Financial contribution of £3,888,372 towards provision of education costs, comprising:

-  £1,250,800 early years;

-  £1,715,480 primary years;

-  £643,320 secondary years;

-  £278,772 post 16 years;

 

Highways

 

§  Financial contribution of £250,000 towards provision of a controlled crossing over Oldchurch Road (west) to improve access to the existing walking and cycling route along the western side of Waterloo Road and ancillary route improvements linked to the above;

§  Financial contribution of £100,000 towards provision of a controlled crossing over Oldchurch Road (east) to improve walking access between the site and South Street and ancillary route improvements linked to the above;

§  Financial contribution of £180,000 towards public transport infrastructure required by Tfl;

§  Provision of cycle/footway along eastern boundary of the site adjoining Rom Valley Way;

§  The provision of 2 car club spaces on the site and 3 years free membership for future residents to the Car Club;

§  The provision of travel plans covering the residential and commercial elements of the scheme;

§  Restrictions on Parking Permits to apply to both residents and commercial operators within the site.

§  21 allocated parking spaces at no charge to be allocated for all 3 and 4 bed affordable units.

 

Carbon offset

 

§  Financial contribution of £854,145 towards carbon offset schemes;

 

BTR

 

§  The Western blocks (242 units) as Build to Rent under a covenant for at least 15 years;

§  Provide units that are all self-contained and let separately;

§  Operate under unified ownership and management;

§  Offer longer tenancies (three years or more) to all tenants, with break clauses that allow the tenant to end the tenancy with a month’s notice any time after the first six months;

§  Offer rent certainty for the period of the tenancy, the basis of which should be made clear to the tenant before a tenancy agreement is signed, including any annual increases which should always be formula-linked;

§  Include on-site management, which does not necessarily mean full-time dedicated on-site staff, but must offer systems for prompt resolution of issues and some daily on-site presence;

§  Be operated by providers who have a complaints procedure in place and are a member of a recognised ombudsman scheme;

§  Not to charge up-front fees of any kind to tenants or prospective tenants, other than deposits and rent-in-advance.

 

Public Realm

 

§  Requirement to obtain a management company to maintain the public realm and landscaped areas;

§  Requirement to make the pedestrian route a pedestrian right of way;

§  Requirement to assume liability over the pedestrian right of way;

 

 

Quality of Architecture

 

§  Requirement to retain novation of architect, as a minimum as executive architects for the scheme;

 

Subject to the above legal agreement, that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions.

 

Councillor Hawthorn voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

Councillors Martin and Williamson abstained from voting.