Agenda item

This application before members related to a proposed development on the site of the existing Romford Ice Rink in Rom Valley Way. The proposal was a hybrid application, consisting of a full application for a new supermarket and petrol filling station and an outline application for a residential development of up to 71 units. The proposals had been made possible through a land transaction, which enabled the Council to separately pursue the redevelopment of a site in Western Road to provide a new public leisure facility, including a swimming pool and an ice rink.  Whilst both applications were separate there was a strong degree of linkage between the proposals, such that each had to be considered with regard to the other.

The application had been through all of the statutory consultation processes, including consultation with the Mayor’s office and Staff are satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable in principle, although this was predicated on ensuring delivery of a leisure facility to replace that being lost from the application site i.e. securing a replacement for the existing ice rink. There was a need for a legal agreement to ensure the delivery of the leisure element. A sequential test approach had been applied to the acceptability of providing a new retail supermarket outside of the existing town centre, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework, and the location of the proposed development was considered to be justified and appropriate.

Consideration had been given to a wide range of planning issues, including factors such as design, layout, parking, access issues, relationship with neighbouring land uses and environmental factors.  Detailed consideration had also been given to the loss of the existing ice rink and the consequent impact on the current users of the facility.

Staff were satisfied, having regard to all material factors, that the proposals were acceptable in principle and it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to no contrary direction from the Mayor for London or call in from the Secretary of State under the referral procedures, the prior completion of a legal agreement and conditions.

The following updates were given by officers:-

•           The financial contribution for highways and transportation related improvements within the vicinity of Queens Hospital was confirmed by the applicant as £30,000;

•           Conditions 32 and 33 will be amended to refer to parameters plan number SK-101;

•           Paragraph 7.4.8 of the report which suggests the likely period of up to two years between closure of the ice rink and re-provision could be longer depending on contractual position;

•           Paragraph 7.5.4 of the report addresses the issue of the request for an additional lane. Further representation were received from interested parties which were addressed by officers;

•           CIL liability which is referred to at paragraph 7.10.5 of the report is not finally determined and officers advised that this did not preclude Members from reaching a decision this evening.  The value of the Mayoral CIL and that for Crossrail are calculations that can be finalised before a decision notice is issued;

•           Additional letters of representation were received and read in summary: one from Inaltus on behalf of Asda Stores and a letter in response from Chase and Partners in response.

Officers explained that for the reasons set out within the report they were satisfied that the proposals were acceptable in respect of retail policy.  The objections received do not change the position stated within the report.

A further letter was received and read in summary from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, emailed to Members directly.  A further letter from Transport for London (TfL) was read in summary.

In response officers stated that they were satisfied that the additional access lane is not needed as a direct result of the proposal. The cases put forward by the applicant and the NHS Trust have been carefully considered and the Officer’s report set out the conclusions reached in this respect.

In respect of the Pedestrian Link while officers recognise that the provision of the pedestrian link between the store and the bus station would be beneficial, it was acknowledged that the prospects for delivering the pedestrian link are limited given that the land is outside of the applicants’ ownership.  It was further noted and welcomed that the Trust are willing to discuss access over its land with the Council and the applicant.  However, the Trust’s offer in this respect is subject to the applicant being obligated to provide the extension to the extra access lane.  Given the conclusions reached in the report about the additional lane, an agreement is not possible in this respect.  However, to ensure that there is a commitment to examine the pedestrian link further, an obligation is recommended within the legal agreement which requires the applicant to use reasonable endeavours to negotiate with the Trust to enable this to happen.

The letter from the Trust also questioned provision of Public Open Space and the perceived absence of a financial contribution. Officers explained that part of the Planning Obligations payment could be used towards improvements to the open space.

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

With its agreement Councillors Andrew Curtin, Jeffrey Tucker and Michael Deon Burton addressed the Committee.

Councillor Tucker commented that he had concerns regarding access and egress to and from the site and could foresee problems with additional traffic in the future. He was also concerned that parking provision was not adequate.

Councillor Burton commented that he welcomed the development as it provided much needed jobs and additional housing.

Councillor Curtin commented that he supported the recommendations and welcomed the possibility of new jobs being created both in the construction phase and the retail phase of the development in accordance with NPPF policy. It was a sustainable proposal with a high level of provision of private gardens in the residential element of the proposal.

Members welcomed the new roundabout proposed. A member questioned the impact the proposed residential element would have on parking in the surrounding area. Officers advised that the parking provision was within guidance at 0.7 per dwelling and there would be a restriction on residential parking permits save for blue badge holders.

Members sought clarification on the position of TfL and the Trust in respect of the additional lane and Pedestrian Link. Officers advised that there was not compelling evidence submitted that indicated the need for an additional lane link to the proposal. However TfL will be part of the notification/referral to the Mayor for London and the Secretary of State. The judgement for members would then be whether without the additional lane members should refuse the application.

Councillors again questioned whether the car parking provision for the supermarket was sufficient particularly with the levels of employment created. Officers advised that a travel plan would be required by condition to encourage sustainable modes of transport for staff at the proposed development.

A member asked if there was provision for  recycling of waste as part of the supermarket proposal. Officers advised that there was no such requirement but through delegated authority to the Head of Development and Building Control scope for a suitably worded condition could be explored.

A member asked if the Transport Assessment has anticipated potential future growth in demand for services at Queens Hospital. Highway engineers clarified that the transport assessment indicated spare capacity in the surrounding road network.

Members also queried the stores opening hours and officers advised that there were no set hours for store opening but deliveries to the store were covered by conditions set out in the report.

Members noted that a Mayoral CIL contribution was liable for the proposed development and that the amount of the CIL would be determined prior to any decision being issued. It was RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to

A: No direction to the contrary on referral to the Mayor for London (under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008);

B: No call-in from the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009: and

C: Prior completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following:

*           Provision of the new leisure facility

*           Use of reasonable endeavours by the applicant to negotiate with the NHS Trust to enable provision of a more direct public footpath link to the site from the existing bus interchange at Queens Hospital and should the appropriate owner(s) dedicate the pedestrian route for highway use, that the appropriate owner(s) enter into the appropriate highways agreement under Section 38 or Section 25 of the Highway Act 1980 to secure the provision of a pedestrian link open to the public

*           Provision of a training and recruitment scheme for local people to be employed during the construction period and during the operation of the supermarket and petrol filling station.

*           Payment of a financial contribution of £6,000 per dwelling unit created on the residential element of the site to be paid prior to commencement of construction of the first residential unit in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD.

*           Payment of a financial contribution of £30,000 to secure highway and transportation related improvements within the vicinity of Queens Hospital

*           Submission of a travel plan, which shall include provision for monitoring and review

*           Restriction on occupiers of the residential development, save for blue badge holders, from obtaining residential parking permits within any current or future proposed controlled parking zone within which the site is located.

Subject to recommendations A), B) and C) above that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to delegate to the Head of Development & Building Control to ensure a BREEAM rating of very good was secured against the foodstore, the wording of a condition on waste recycling on site and to clarify the final Mayoral CIL payment.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 4.

Councillors Oddy, Tebbutt, Brace, Kelly, Misir, Osborne and pain voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillors Hawthorn, Ower, McGeary and Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.