Agenda item

The application before Members was for the demolition of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site to create forty six affordable residential units and two commercial units, with new access roads, associated planting, landscaping, servicing and car parking.

The development would comprise of thirty six flats and two commercial units in a three-storey block to the south of the site and a terrace row of ten houses to the north.

The application was deferred at the Committee meeting on 18 June 2015 in order for staff to clarify the current position on the potential inclusion of a GP surgery in the scheme.

Members were advised that the matter was given consideration throughout the design process as a result of the initial local resident and member consultations. Indeed, to facilitate and explore this possibility, the Council spoke directly to a representative of the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) which commissioned most of the hospital and community NHS services in the local areas for which they are responsible.

Commissioning involved deciding what services were needed, and ensured that they were provided. CCGs were overseen by NHS England, which retained responsibility for commissioning primary care services such as GP and dental services, as well as some specialised hospital services. It was also noted that all GP practices now belonged to a CCG.

Staff had led on these discussions which yielded no clear commitment from the CCG to invest in a new GP facility within the proposed Briar Road development.

Officers reported that this remained the current position and it was confirmed most recently on the 24 June 2015 that the CCG were developing an options paper on the need and potential scale of a GP surgery and were exploring the potential and viability of other locations. There were no set timescales for this work to be completed, or decision to be taken.

The view of the Council was to maintain an ‘open door’ approach with regard to the provision of a GP surgery on the Briar Road development and this would be led by the demand and requirements of the CCG, should it occur.

Members were advised that despite the desire from some local residents to have a GP surgery on the Briar Road development, the Council had no powers to insist this should happen, and had expressed throughout the progression of the scheme a willingness to facilitate the provision of a GP surgery only if there was a specific demand and need from the CCG.

Officers advised that as the scheme progressed it would be the Council’s intention to monitor demand for the proposed commercial units, and would welcome expressions of interest from all potential users, including the CCG.

With its agreement Councillor Philip Hyde addressed the Committee.

Councillor Hyde re-iterated some of the points that had been raised at the previous meeting in particular that the proposal was saturating the Harold Hill area with more housing and eroding the clean, safe and green initiatives that were the Council’s corporate objectives.

Councillor Hyde commented that a number of the previously promised environmental improvements to the area had only been carried out following pressure from ward councillors and the Briar Road Action Group (BRAG).

Councillor Hyde also commented that the shopkeepers on the site had not been consulted with for the last five months leaving them in a state of uncertainty as to the progression of the scheme and future provision.

Councillor Hyde advised Members that he had met with the Chief Operating Officer of Havering’s CCG who advised that a decision as to whether to consider the Briar Road proposal and the possible inclusion of healthcare provision was due to be discussed on 4 August 2015. Councillor Hyde advised that Members should have been in receipt of an email confirming this.

Councillor Hyde also commented on the overlooking aspect that the proposed properties would have on existing properties.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector without a response from the applicant.

The objector commented that the majority of environmental improvements promised had not been carried out and that some improvements had only been carried out following pressure from BRAG. The objector also commented that the proposed retail units were too small to be suitable for shopkeepers or possible GP practices.

During the debate Members discussed the impact the proposed properties would have on neighbouring properties and the unsuitableness of the proposed retail units.

Members also discussed the uncertainty regarding the inclusion of additional healthcare facilities and were advised by officers that consideration of the proposal as was set out in the report was of importance in line with planning guidance.

Discussions also focussed on the current condition of the site which was a concrete heavy area with empty flats and vacant retail units which was in need of regeneration.

Members discussed the current GP provision in the locality which was not fully utilised and agreed that any additional healthcare provision, which was unlikely and a possible delaying constraint, would effectively lead to the existing provision being closed.

Following the debate the Committee noted that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £40,580 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• A financial contribution of £276,000 to be paid prior to the commencement of the development, to be used for educational purposes in accordance with the Policy DC72 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

• All contribution sums shall include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the unilateral undertaking to the date of receipt by the Council.

That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant planning permission upon the completion of the unilateral undertaking subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 7 votes 3 with 1 abstention.

Councillors Misir, Best, Crowder, Kelly, Wallace, Ford and Hawthorn voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillors Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillor Nunn abstained from voting.