Report attached

The Committee was advised that 138 flats were proposed in a Council-led development. There would be 117 affordable flats as well as 21 units for care leavers. The church at the location would be remaining on the site.

The scheme had been progressed with officers and a quality review panel was now in place. The development would have 100% affordable housing with 10% wheelchair provision. Accessible units in the buildings would be accessed from Chippenham Road and parking would be available around the perimeter of the site. Storage for mobility vehicles and wheelchairs would be built into the development. There was potential for a community garden and there would also be a high number of dual aspect units in the development. Landscaping would include integrated play spaces.

Whilst accepting that part of Chippenham Road was in a Controlled Parking Zone, the site was surrounded by unrestricted parking zones and representatives of the developer advised that spare parking capacity had been surveyed in nearby roads such as Dartfields and had been found to be at around 50%. The development would have a parking ration of 0.4 spaces per unit of housing. This was the maximum allowed under the London plan and the developer did not wish to overprovide parking if there were sufficient on street parking spaces available. Accessible parking and electric vehicle charging points would be available on site.

The planning consultant for the applicant explained that he worked in close consultation with the Council’s housing team. The homes for young people would be provided for clients who had recently left Havering Care Services. There would be an on-site support officer available but it was accepted that this would only be during the day, not on a 24-hour basis. The supported units would be in a specific part of the site with a separate entrance. Occupants would be at least 18 years of age and more detail could be given of the design of the units. Members remained concerned at the prospect of housing young people together in this way.

The development was supported by local ward Councillors who were pleased with the increased provision of 3-bedroom homes but felt this should be raised further if possible. Ward Councillors also supported the provision for care leavers, provided that the correct support was given to the young people and felt that the proposed landscaping was important for the area. They felt that there were enough parking spaces in the area and that the development should link in with the proposed redevelopment of the shopping centre in Harold Hill.

The Committee noted the report and the presentation by the developer and raised the following for consideration as the proposal moved forward:

·       The lack of architectural merit in the proposals although it was noted that the designs were still at an early stage.

·       Concern from some Members that there were not enough parking spaces in the development. It was noted that a car club would be provided and that Harold Wood station could be reached by bus in 10 minutes. The developer therefore felt that there would be adequate parking provision. A transport assessment would be undertaken as part of the planning application. A parking management plan would also be included. Cycle parking would also be provided in line with the London Policy.

·       Concern that delivery vehicles would have park in the street rather than on site as would refuse collection vehicles.

·       The provision of electric vehicle charging points should be at least in accordance with the London Plan. Officers also advised that there would be dedicated parking spaces for electric vehicles. Members also felt that consideration should be given to parking facilities from utility companies etc.

·       That more large, family homes should be provided. The developer responded that more 3-bedroom homes as well as two 4-bedroom homes had now been added and that adding further larger homes would reduce the overall number of units available. Members continued to feel however that the pressure in the local area for larger homes should be addressed by the development.

·       That effective on-site supervision of occupants of the units for young people should available. More detail should be provided of the design of the supported units.

·       Reassurance was needed that the district heating scheme would not be cost prohibitive although the planning consultant confirmed that the scheme was in line with national policy.

Any further comments were requested to be sent to planning officers within the next week.