Havering Council's Strategic Planning Committee has approved plans for the demolition of Angel Way multi-storey car park in Romford and its redevelopment into 106 flats and a commercial unit. The decision was made by a narrow margin of three votes to two, with one abstention, despite significant concerns raised by local councillors regarding affordable housing, safety, and the impact on the local heritage.
The redevelopment, which will see the existing car park replaced by two residential blocks, was called in by Councillor Joshua Chapman, who expressed disappointment that his concerns about the safety of women and girls and the lack of affordable housing were not fully addressed. He argued that the enclosed nature of the proposed development could exacerbate safety issues by forcing pedestrians to take longer routes.
During the meeting, concerns were raised about the enclosed nature of the site potentially forcing pedestrians to take longer routes and exacerbating safety issues for women and girls. While the report mentions a new walkway route being considered as a condition, Councillor Chapman felt it was an afterthought and that the details needed to be seen in advance to ensure it mitigated risks sufficiently. The case officer clarified that the lighting scheme would be subject to a condition that could be tweaked to include public safety.
Councillor David Taylor, another ward councillor, echoed these concerns, adding that the application was not in line with the Romford Masterplan, particularly regarding flood mitigation and the de-culverting of the River Rom. He also highlighted objections from the council's own conservation officer, who found that the development's overbearing impact on the heritage of the area, specifically the setting of St. Edward the Confessor Church, outweighed its benefits.
During the meeting, councillors questioned the height of the proposed buildings, which would reach up to eight stories, exceeding the Romford Masterplan's recommendation of four to six stories. The case officer, Ang Broody, explained that the proposed height was considered acceptable due to the emerging context of taller developments to the north,
with heights approaching eight stories and up to 16 stories on St. Edward's Way. The officer stated that the height was considered acceptable and would appear broadly contextual with the scale of surrounding built forms.
Councillor Jane Keane, however, expressed reservations about the height and monolithic nature of the buildings, feeling they would continue to add to the feeling of intensification of height intensification of the area.
The council's own conservation officer found that the benefits of the development were outweighed by its overbearing impact on the heritage of the area,
specifically the setting of St. Edward the Confessor Church.
Concerns were also raised about the absence of affordable housing in the development. The officer reiterated that a viability assessment had shown no surplus to fund affordable housing, a position consistent with planning policy that allows for flexibility when viability issues arise.
This assessment was reviewed by a third party on behalf of the council
who agreed that the scheme was in deficit. The planning system allows schemes to demonstrate through viability that they cannot afford affordable housing, and this scheme has gone through that process. The officer also mentioned that there are review mechanisms in place, such as reassessing viability if the development doesn't start within two years, or a late-stage review once occupation begins if the development performs better financially than anticipated. This was met with strong criticism from Councillor Chapman, who stated, Mercury Land Holdings is the council. This council needs affordable housing.
Despite these reservations, the committee ultimately voted to approve the application, subject to conditions and obligations outlined in the committee report and addendum. The approval of the application was subject to the conditions and obligations set out in the original committee report and the subsequent addendum.
The addendum proposed additional conditions relating to highways works, a road safety audit, car parking provision, and works to Angel Way.
Additionally, a condition was mentioned regarding the lighting scheme that could be tweaked to include public safety, and another condition would require details of the delivery and servicing plan. A condition was also discussed to potentially adjust the layout of cycle parking to free up space for other uses, and a condition regarding waste disposal was mentioned, which would require details of bulky waste collection to be included.
