Planning Commitee Meeting review
I had the privilege, on Thursday 12th November, to voice at the Regulatory Services Committee Meeting the real concerns of the people of Harold Wood as regards Countryside’s proposals for the Hospital site. I have to admit having only 2 minutes to present the case against was a real challenge. Fortunately Diane Smith and I had liaised prior to the meeting and had agreed our individual areas of focus. Diane was keen to home in on concerns re Education, Health, Leisure and Infrastructure. My focus was the more technical issues - density of housing units per hectare; the poor quality of amenity space - raised decking, communal decking, shared hard space, SMALL gardens - all of which fails to meet Supplementary Planning Guidance; the seeming willingness to impose URBAN features on Harold Wood; the idea that you can create ” a community within a community ” without proper regard to social and community cohesion is particularly worrying.
I was at pains to point out to the Councillors that in their much heralded “Living Ambition - A Vision for Havering in the next 20 years” they had stressed the importance of engaging people in the decisions that affect them. This would, I suggested, mean they should be LISTENING to the 1800 people who had written to the Planning Department opposing these plans. Bearing in mind the Leader of the Council had only recently stated ” Houses are BEST for Havering” the plan to have a 70 to 30 split flats to Houses on the site was in conflict not only with the Leader’s statement but also key elements of Living Ambition.
We are all aware that outline planning permission for 423 housing units was granted in 2006 but the density was 49.4 housing units per hectare as opposed to 69 in the current proposals. At the eastern end of the development, close to the station and Gubbins Lane the density would be 95 housing units per hectare. I suggested there was a major discrepancy here! The $64,000 question was whether the Councillors themselves would want to live on such an estate? In conclusion I urged them to have the courage to go against the recommendation of the Planning Team. The unanimous decision to defer was a good result for the people of Harold Wood. We can now organise ourselves for the next stage of the campaign. The support of local residents outside the Town Hall and in the Council Chamber was greatly appreciated. Nigel Broom
August 18th, 2010 at 11:12 am
In answer to Glen Hudson’s simplistic offering along the lines of the world being built on supply and demand, yes we know but that’s no reason to destroy existing communities just to prove a point true or otherwise. As already mentioned, this housing is being built simply because the developers can make money and sod the consequences. Particularly so as most of these will not be going to ‘local’ people anyway but more likely go towards housing the overspill from places such as Hackney. Behind it all it’s all so very political though isn’t it. Countryside shove in a few choice PC phrases abnout ‘enrichment’ and ‘diversity’ to keep the ‘authorities’ happy and suddenly they can’t wait to concrete over all of us ‘little Englanders’ in the name of progress. Despicable!
March 31st, 2010 at 8:50 pm
I can only assume, Glen, that you are young with no family. For young couples/individuals, living in flats close to town where they can live, work and socialise in a hub of activity is great, but as a family man in my forties, I would like to commute home out of the “big smoke” and enjoy a more relaxed lifestyle, with something other than concrete tower blocks to look at. We shouldn’t confuse the need for more houses in London to mean tower blocks must be built on every spare patch of land within the M25. Why must we change what we have? There is plenty of space in London to build accommodation….Romfords new flats lay largly empty as they struggle to fill them. As i have said before, these flats are not being built out of necessity for housing, they are being built because the property developers can make more money out of them.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:32 am
While I agree with the general thrust of Glen’s piece, I think the opposition is really based around the nature of the proposed development, the biggest block is to be nine stories, far taller than the existing maternity block on the site. The maternity block is currently the tallest building in the area by some margin. Though there are those who still think of Harold Wood as a “village”, I get the impression that the vast majority of the opposition is to the nature of the proposed development, if the character was more like Romleighs I suspect much opposition would be silenced.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
The country needs more housing, more than that, it needs more affordable (ie ‘2 bedroom flat’) housing. More than that, places like London need more affordable 2 bedroom flats. So what’s the problem with flats?
Yes the roads may not be able to take it at first but our world is based on supply and demand. There is a demand for more housing, so more housing will be built.
If there is then a demand for more roads, more roads will be built. If there is no room for more roads then demand will dictate the creation of a tram/train/bus solution.
Come the day there is no more room for housing then either:
- People will have to apply for licenses to have kids
- Medicine will be rationed so as to allow more people to die
- Apartment blocks will replace houses.
As I’m sure you’ll agree, a brownfield site such as a derelict hospital is prime for developing into houses, so there’s no argument there.
You’re just worried that the extra housing is going to cause a strain on the existing infrastructure. Fair point, but let’s go back to the reason for all this housing: it’s needed.
So your argument isn’t really with this development of a brownfield site into an estate with more than enough parky bits, your argument is with government who say “We need more houses.”
And if you’re arguing against that statement what are you in fact arguing for?
1. The need to license procreation
2. Put nature back in charge of lifespans
3. Or are you saying that we need to build more flats?