Report attached.

Councillor Tim Ryan declared a Non Pecuniary Interest on this item. Councillor Ryan remained in the meeting and took part in the discussion. Councillor Ryan stated that he is a Ward Member and had made comment on the development recently.

The Committee received a presentation on the proposed full planning application for the mixed-use development of the site, including full details for a total of 1,253 affordable homes (100%), a 720 sqm sports hall, a 450 sqm community centre/boat house, 164 sqm of neighbourhood retail floorspace, together with associated landscaping, parking provision and cycle storage, the delivery of over 3.5 hectares of public open space and 1.5 hectares of children’s play space, and the introduction of a new bus route linking Crow Lane and Wood Lane.

The Committee noted that the application site comprises the existing Crowlands Golf Centre, extending to approximately 22.5 hectares of land located to the south of Crow Lane and to the north of Wood Lane and Rush Green Road. The site spans two London boroughs, Barking and Dagenham and Havering, with the majority of the land situated within the London Borough of Havering. It is understood that the entire site is in the ownership of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The site is designated as Metropolitan Green Belt in both the Havering and Barking and Dagenham Local Plans, and part of the site is also designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) of Borough Importance.

The report stated that the  land is currently in use as a golf centre, comprising a 9-hole golf course, driving range, lake and clubhouse, and is arranged in an L-shape around the West Ham United training ground, which occupies a substantial area to the south and east. The site is bounded by school playing fields and existing residential development to the west, with a rugby club located to the north-east. In terms of accessibility, the site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) ranging from 1a (very low accessibility) in the north near Crow Lane to 3 (moderate accessibility) in the south near Rush Green Road. No part of the site lies within reasonable walking distance of a rail or Underground station, with Chadwell Heath and Romford stations both located more than 2 kilometres from the nearest point of the site. Public transport provision is limited, with Rush Green Road served by frequent bus routes, while Crow Lane is served only by the westbound 499 bus route, which operates at low frequency and has no bus stops along the site frontage.

With its agreement, a ward Member, Councillor Viddy Persaud addressed the Committee and raised objections to the proposal, stating that there was strong opposition from residents to development on the site which was described as Green Belt land and a valued open space. Councillor Persaud highlighted the importance of the area for community wellbeing, recreation, wildlife, and environmental benefits and warned that development would set a harmful precedent leading to the gradual loss of protected land. While acknowledging the need for housing, it was argued that Green Belt development should be a last resort particularly given the availability of nearby development sites and underused brownfield land. Concerns were also raised about pressure on local infrastructure including roads and health services and the potential environmental impacts. Councillor Persaud urged the Committee to reject the proposal and demonstrate that residents’ views had been heard.

During general discussions, Members sought clarification on whether the site was designated Green Belt or Grey Belt. Officers advised that the site is designated as Green Belt in the adopted Local Plan. It was noted that recent changes to national planning policy have introduced the concept of Grey Belt, which requires a site by site assessment until a borough wide review is completed. Officers confirmed that a formal conclusion would be reached within the officer report, applying the relevant policy tests at the time of determination.

Members queried the historic landfill and ground conditions on the site. The Committee was advised that desk based assessments and borehole investigations had been undertaken, identifying historic inert construction waste in limited areas only. Further site wide investigations were ongoing, with no evidence of hazardous or toxic materials identified to date. It was confirmed that all findings would be submitted with the application and reviewed in consultation with the Environment Agency.

Members discussed the relevance of housing need to the proposal. Officers advised that housing need was a material consideration but would not, in itself, outweigh Green Belt policy. Concern was expressed that the proposed housing mix did not sufficiently address the need for larger family accommodation. It was confirmed that four bedroom units were included within the scheme and that full details of the accommodation schedule would be provided.

Members raised significant concerns regarding parking provision, traffic impact, and access arrangements, particularly given the scale of development and cumulative impact of nearby schemes. It was noted that car dependency remained high in the area. Concerns were also raised regarding pressure on local infrastructure, including roads, healthcare provision, and Queen’s Hospital and Members requested that these matters be carefully assessed as part of the application.

Members raised concerns regarding the impact of the development on biodiversity and wildlife and requested further information on ecological assessments and proposed mitigation measures.

Members queried how the development would be managed given that the site spans two London boroughs. The Committee was informed that the site would be subject to a single estate wide management arrangement to ensure consistent maintenance, with statutory services delivered by the respective boroughs.

Members sought clarification on the definition of social rent and key worker housing. The Committee noted that rent levels would be agreed with the Council’s housing department in accordance with London wide policy. Members also queried the proposed sports hall. The Committee was advised that discussions were ongoing with local sports organisations regarding its future management and community use.

The following points were agreed as a summary of the Committee’s views on the development:

1.      Members expressed the view that there needs to be clear direction on the future status of the site, including whether it should be considered Green Belt or Grey Belt.

2.      Members emphasised the importance of confirming that the land is not contaminated, seeking further clarity on historic landfill use and whether this poses any ongoing or future risk.

3.      Members noted comments regarding the provision of four bedroom dwellings and requested that the applicant clarify whether the proposed housing mix adequately meets identified local housing needs.

4.      Members raised questions regarding the management of spaces between the buildings. It was noted that estate wide management would be in place, with borough responsibilities limited to statutory services such as refuse collection.

5.    Concern was raised about the proximity of some buildings to the site boundaries and the potential impact on existing residents, particularly in relation to the overall scale and quantum of development.

6.      Members queried whether the level of parking proposed would be sufficient to serve the number of future residents.

7.      Members raised concerns regarding existing biodiversity on the site and requested reassurance that ecological impacts, including protected species, would be adequately addressed.

8.      Concern was expressed regarding the capacity of existing infrastructure, particularly GP provision and the local hospital, to accommodate additional residents.

9.      Members requested further consideration of vehicular access arrangements, including whether the proposed access points would function effectively and avoid congestion at peak times.

10.    Members sought clarification on rent levels for social and affordable housing, as well as responsibility for the management and operation of the proposed sports centre and associated facilities.