Report attached

The Committee considered a planning application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Harold Hill District Centre and demolition of existing buildings and structures. The application forms part of the Havering’s ’12 Estates’ regeneration strategy. The  application follows the recent approvals for the Family Welcome Centre on the northern side of Hilldene Avenue and the affordable led residential scheme on the southern side of Chippenham Road.

The scheme proposes the demolition of the existing centre where the Harold Hill Library will be retained and for the redevelopment to deliver up to 481 homes, between 6,204 sqm and 6,504 sqm maximum (GEA) of flexible commercial and community floorspace, public and private open space, highways improvements, landscaping and other benefits.

Members reviewed the detailed graphics presented and expressed concern about the potential loss of valuable spaces within the scheme. It was noted that the development is heavily residential with limited commercial provision, raising questions about the viability of a mixed-use centre. Concerns were also raised regarding the lack of supporting infrastructure, particularly the absence of secondary school provision, which represents a missed opportunity to address local needs.

Further comments highlighted the need for larger family homes, as the current proposal includes a significant number of smaller units, which may create long-term challenges for future generations. Members also noted the prevalence of single-aspect dwellings, which could lead to poor ventilation and limited natural light, impacting the quality of living conditions. While some dual-aspect units were acknowledged, concerns remained about the overall design quality.

Questions were raised about the compatibility of proposed uses, such as pubs, within a predominantly residential development. Members stressed that such uses would require careful management, particularly given trends toward extended opening hours and live entertainment. Additional concerns were expressed about the nature of retail provision, which currently includes bars, takeaways, and betting shops, in an area of significant deprivation.

Members queried whether the scheme offers sufficient quality and diversity, noting the absence of financial services such as banks or post offices. It was requested that discussions be held with relevant institutions to explore these opportunities.

Further clarification was sought on internal layouts, including whether floor spaces meet recommended standards and whether all areas are genuinely usable. Members also requested details on servicing arrangements for commercial units.

Members raised two major concerns regarding the proposed scheme. The first related to the bulk and height of the blocks along Farnham Avenue, which were considered too high and potentially causing overshadowing. It was suggested that further work may be needed to reduce building heights and address overshadowing impacts within the outline design. The second concern focused on parking provision. Members questioned whether the proposed number of spaces would be sufficient given the anticipated increase in residential units and the existing high demand in the area. It was noted that the current proposal includes 61 residential spaces, with retail parking provision ranging between 137 and 150 spaces, based on survey data showing peak demand at approximately 128 spaces. Officers clarified that the application is hybrid in nature with detailed parking numbers to be confirmed at a later stage, and that residential parking would be provided at a minimum ratio of 0.35 spaces per unit. Members stressed the need to ensure adequate parking capacity to avoid future issues, particularly given the loss of existing housing and the likelihood of increased car use for shopping and local trips.

Members welcomed the relocation of the public house within the scheme, noting its importance as a community hub. However, they reiterated the need for careful consideration of parking impacts and requested that these concerns be addressed in future design stages.

Following the debate, the Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to completion of a legal agreement or unilateral undertaking whichever is the appropriate legal mechanism pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and all other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations detailed in the report. And one additional condition on noise and ventilation.

The vote for approval, was carried by 5 votes in favour to 1 abstention. Councillor Ray Best abstained from the vote.