Report attached.

The report before Members detailed an application that sought planning permission for the erection of a part single, part two storey building with a total floor area of 6339m2 (GIA) to provide a new 38 classroom Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) school for both primary and secondary students with associated access and car parking, informal and formal play space, hard multipurpose games pitch (MUGA), hard and soft landscaping.

The school will have a capacity for 300 pupils aged 4-19 years (Key Stage 1 to 5), students with complex learning needs serving children from Havering’s local community, and 218 members of staff would be employed on the site to support its operation.

The school would provide a special educational school for children with social, emotional, and mental health needs (SEMH) difficulties, Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC) and severe learning difficulties; it will help meet a pressing need for additional SEN school places in the Borough and will help ensure students are taught in specialist, purpose-built buildings specifically suited to their particular learning needs.

The proposed school building would be sited on an existing open green field. It would be a part single, part two storey building with a broadly U- footprint designed as a series of interconnected wings arranged logically to meet the needs of the different year groups. The layout groups Early Years, Primary, Secondary, and Post-16 pupils into distinct zones.

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

With its agreement, Councillor Keith Prince addressed the committee, expressing strong concerns about the lack of engagement with ward councillors and residents, stating that issues raised had been ignored and the process felt rushed. He highlighted residents’ objections regarding the Council acting as applicant, planning authority and adjudicator, questioning fairness and transparency. Councillor Prince raised serious concerns about traffic safety, noting the potential risks posed by 250 daily vehicle movements near local schools and commuter routes and argued that proposed traffic management measures were inadequate. He also stressed that the application still had seven outstanding conditions identified by the Mayor of London and would require GLA approval even if passed by the committee. Councillor Prince urged the Committee to defer the decision until these issues were resolved and further consultation undertaken, given significant changes since the original proposal.

With its agreement Councillor Taylor also addressed the Committee. He  spoke, acknowledging the urgent need for a SEND school in Romford but raising concerns about the site’s suitability. He questioned the adequacy of drop-off arrangements, bus capacity for pupils with mobility needs, and suggested TfL engagement to review transport provision and bus stop locations. Councillor Taylor also suggested pavement upgrades for safety and raised concerns about the proposed MUGA’s community use outside school hours, urging consultation with residents to mitigate amenity impacts. In response, Officers confirmed that conditions and agreements would address lighting, community use and management plans and reiterated that the application would be subject to GLA and Secretary of State oversight.

Officers also clarified that safeguards were in place including referral to the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London ensuring the Council would not act as sole decision-maker.

Members discussed assumptions in the travel plan noting that the report on page 60 assumes an 85/15 split between minibus and car travel with no allowance for public transport use. A sensitivity test based on a 50/50 split was mentioned but not included in the report, prompting questions about its omission. Officers clarified that this will be addressed through a condition requiring submission and approval of a detailed travel plan, which will also be reviewed by TfL. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of parking provision, with only 29 spaces proposed for 218 staff, and whether assumptions about staff using public transport were realistic given early and late working hours. Officers explained that parking spaces were reduced following TfL’s insistence on compliance with London Plan policies promoting sustainable travel, and that a parking management plan will be required.

The Committee discussed concerns regarding the lighting conditions associated with the proposed development. It was noted that the applicants would be required to submit further detailed information to ensure that lighting is properly managed and does not adversely affect neighbouring properties. Officers confirmed that such matters would be addressed through specific planning conditions, including those regulating external lighting schemes and floodlighting. These conditions, together with the required Community Use Agreement, would provide controls over how the sports facilities both the sports hall and the MUGA would operate.

Further clarification was provided regarding the management of the site. Members were advised that the facility would not be left unattended and that on site supervision would form part of the operational arrangements. This was to ensure that the facility is used appropriately and that the surrounding area is protected, particularly given the proximity to a school. Reference was made to previous discussions with the applicant, during which the management approach was outlined, and it was confirmed that related travel arrangements and supervision expectations were incorporated into the submitted plans.

Members raised questions about the adequacy of parking provision noting that staff numbers were significantly higher than the number of proposed parking bays. Concerns were expressed about potential overspill parking in surrounding streets and the impact on local residents. Officers highlighted that parking provision had been a major point of negotiation, with Transport for London requiring a reduction in the number of spaces in line with London Plan policies promoting public transport. Much of the surrounding area is subject to parking restrictions, meaning staff would not be able to park in nearby streets. Officers reiterated that the scheme must comply with strategic transport policies, even if this resulted in limited on site parking.

It was further noted that the Greater London Authority had consistently taken the view that parking levels should be reduced, and officers advised that the scheme would not likely have progressed without the agreed reductions. Members discussed the practical implications for staff who might rely on private vehicles, but officers emphasised that travel planning and school management practices including incentives to use public transport would need to address such matters.

The Committee explored whether an additional planning condition should be imposed to ensure stronger management controls over the MUGA, specifically to minimise any potential amenity impacts on neighbouring occupiers. Officers advised that while existing conditions already covered lighting, noise and community use, it would nevertheless be permissible for Members to add a bespoke condition relating to the management of the MUGA if they considered it necessary.

Further reference was made to the Community Use Agreement, which would regulate public access to the sports facilities. Officers confirmed that the agreement submitted with the application was only a draft and would be fully finalised and discharged through the conditions process following approval. All such documents would be publicly accessible. The Committee expressed the view that a management plan going beyond the draft agreement might be desirable, and officers reiterated that a specific condition could be added should the committee wish to ensure a more detailed operational framework.

Additional comments were made regarding comparisons with other schools, noting that the proposed development would accommodate significantly more pupils and would generate greater traffic and safeguarding considerations.

Members stressed the importance of ensuring the safety of students, particularly during pick up and drop off periods. Officers explained that most pupils would travel by council provided buses or accessible transport, and that staggered arrival and departure times together with designated waiting arrangements for vehicles formed part of the submitted travel plan. These management measures would also be secured through planning conditions.

Following the debate, the Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to the report conditions and additional condition discussed.

The vote for approval, was carried by 3 votes for, to 2 abstentions.