Report attached.

The Committee received a presentation on the a proposed development site, comprising approximately 570 homes and some ancillary non-residential floorspace. The developable areas would be concentrated across the central and western parts of the site, whilst the eastern half of the site would be used as areas of open space. This results in a scheme where approximately 12 of the 24.5-hectare site would be built on.

The scale of the proposed development includes buildings of heights increasing from two and a half storeys around the periphery of the site, up to four storeys in the centre, with intervening heights of three storeys, to gradually step up away from the site boundaries.

Members held a detailed discussion on the proposed development at Benets Road, focusing primarily on the site’s Green Belt status and questioning why this location had been selected for housing given its protected designation and limited transport links.

Concerns were raised about the lack of sustainable travel options, with only one bus route serving the area, and Members queried the impacts of introducing between 470–500 new homes on local highways, existing congestion, and junction capacity.

Environmental issues featured prominently, including potential loss of biodiversity, impacts on wildlife, protected woodlands, the Ingrebourne valley, and the vulnerability of the river corridor and SINC. Questions were asked about tree loss, woodland retention, and whether wildlife movement would be restricted.

With its agreement, a ward Member, Councillor Laurance Garrard addressed the Committee. Councillor Garrard  stated that the proposal to build up to 500 homes on the fields behind Benets Road and Wingletye Lane poses a serious threat to the semi-rural character of this part of Havering. Although labelled by developers as “grey belt,” the land is in fact a vital part of the Green Belt, preventing urban sprawl, preserving openness, and maintaining the distinct identities of Hornchurch and Upminster. The area contains productive agricultural land, woodlands, and key parts of the Thames Chase Community Forest, as well as the River Ingrebourne—an important wildlife corridor supporting species such as badgers, foxes, bats and owls. The proposal is seen as speculative and developer driven rather than part of a strategic, plan led approach. Concerns were also raised over the Council’s initial decision not to require an Environmental Impact Assessment. Residents depend on the Green Belt as essential natural space, and once reclassified it is lost permanently. Councillor Garrard called on the Council to oppose the proposal, reject any future application and protect Havering’s Green Belt and local character.

During general debate Members highlighted that the site comprises Grade 2 agricultural land and lies within a minerals safeguarding area, raising concerns about sterilisation of mineral resources and long term land protection. The applicant outlined their view that parts of the site constituted “grey belt” rather than Green Belt and described their assessments of Green Belt purposes, sustainability, and housing need. Members remained concerned about walking distances to stations, the realism of transport assumptions, and the sustainability of the site overall.

Questions were also raised regarding public feedback received, construction phase impacts, drainage issues, flood zone risks under climate change scenarios, and how the scheme would protect nearby residents during development. Members additionally sought reassurance that areas kept open for ecological or drainage purposes would be legally secured against future phases of development. The importance of inclusive play provision for children with special educational needs was emphasised and Members asked for a commitment to engage specialist groups. The discussion concluded with references to the 2016 Green Belt Study, which classifies the wider parcel as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes and Members noted concerns that the delay in updating the Local Plan had contributed to the policy tensions now arising.

The following points were agreed as a summary of key issues raised by Members of the Committee:

Green Belt and Planning Policy

•        Members noted that the entire application site lies within the Green Belt, raising significant concerns about the principle of development in such a highly protected area.

•        Reference was made to the 2016 Green Belt Study, which identified the site as having substantial Green Belt value.

•        Members suggested that the Local Plan update should be brought forward given the pressures and policy challenges relating to Green Belt release.

Sustainability of the Location

•        Members questioned the suitability of delivering approximately 570 homes in a location considered unsustainable, with very limited public transport options.

•        It was noted that the area is served by only one bus route, raising concerns about reliance on private vehicles.

•          Members queried the accuracy of walking distance calculations to the nearest rail stations.

•           Clarification was sought on rail service frequency.

 Transport and Highways Impacts

•        Members asked how the development would avoid generating a significant increase in car traffic, given the limited transport infrastructure.

•        Concerns were raised about potential adverse impacts on the local highway network and what mitigation measures would be required.

Environmental and Ecological Considerations

•           Concerns were expressed about potential impacts on:

§    Local wildlife

§    Protected woodlands adjacent to the site

§    River ecology, including risks of contamination to the river corridor and the adjoining Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC)

•      Members noted that the site includes high grade agricultural land and has previously appeared in records as a possible minerals site.

Climate Change and Flood Risk

•      Members queried how future climate related flood risks would be addressed, including the potential for wider areas of the site to fall into higher flood risk zones under future climate scenarios.

•           Further details were requested on proposed mitigation measures.

Construction Impacts

•        Members sought clarification on how the developer intends to minimise the adverse impacts of construction, including:

§     Construction traffic

§     Noise

§     Site access management

§     Environmental disturbance

Public Engagement

•      Members asked for an update on the public engagement responses received to date, and how these have influenced the development proposals.

•        Members encouraged the developer to continue engagement with local groups throughout the plan’s evolution.

 Inclusive Design and Community Facilities

•        Members stressed the importance of providing inclusive play facilities, fully accessible for children with special educational needs.

•        Suggested that developers work with appropriate community support groups as the proposals develop.

Procedural and Background Matters

•        A Member referred to an earlier Council notice indicating that the applicant had sought a screening opinion for the site.

•        Members also noted that the Council website confirms that the site is wholly within the Green Belt, a highly restrictive designation intended to preserve openness and the rural urban fringe.

Members of the Committee were advised that further comments or considerations could be emailed to the Head of Strategic Planning within a week of the meeting.