On 16 December 2024 the proposed developments on Site A and B at Billet Road were approved.
Planning Officer, Julian, seems to have been brought in to speak to the Planning Committee, presumably taking time away from being an associate director of HYAS. He spoke for a considerable amount of time, around an hour in total.
At times I was reminded of a competition salespeople have near Christmas when they compete to get a given word into their sales talk, often ‘snow’ or ‘reindeer’. In this case it was ‘sitewide’ and ‘Masterplan’. I counted 16 mentions in the first 20 mins.
Perhaps this is due to the GLA / London Mayor’s concerns that each site should be stand alone. Not so, suggested the Planning Officer as he told the Planning Committee, ’I can probably tell you from my own experience that trying to masterplan a site on a piece meal basis and considering individual sites is not the best way to plan a new community and not what your officers have done’.
If for some reason Sites C, D and E of the ‘sitewide masterplan’ do not go ahead does it all collapse like a house of cards, or like houses built on a contaminated landfill?
The Planning Officer highlighted the need for infrastructure and facilities for new residential developments. He detailed those local or rather described them as ‘within the vicinity’. He missed out that the sports ground, which he mentioned twice for good measure, is actually a West Ham training ground and not open to the public. The local school is indeed close to the site but caters solely for Special Needs pupils. The GP’s ‘in the vicinity’ aren’t taking new patients and the one in Marks Gate has yet to be asked by LBR or the developers whether they could actually cater for this amount of new of patients. Incidentally, they told the local action group they can’t at least not for several years.
The Planning Officer darted from Site A to B and back again which made it somewhat confusing while frequently reminding us that we are not talking about Sites C, D and E. I am pretty sure most of us were fully aware of that. Did this have anything to do with them not being stand alone?
Towards the end of his speech the Committee and gallery were shown a film produced by Bellway depicting how the site might look as you walk or cycle through it. Probably as imagined by AI. This film has not been made publicly available either before the committee meeting or since. Nor is it shown on the recording of the Committee Meeting. Hard to scrutinise or make comments if you have not been able to see it in advance.
The Monitoring Officer left the meeting after 15mins and returned 30mins later, once the film had been shown and the speech was close to ending.
Noteably absent from the Planning Officer’s speech was any information on the objections received. The report says there were 86 objections, this is wrong as there were well in excess of 100. Its explained away in an Addendum added on the day of the Committee meeting, as having no full addresses / contact details for the LPA to ascertain who made the comments (this could easily be argued by the local action group who handed in the letters of objection and have retained copies).
The Addendum continues .. ‘In any event they raise no new issues that are not already covered’. The fact that so many local residents have the same concerns/objections is rather telling, but sadly ignored.
Strangely the report also states that 86 consultation letters were sent out, which is a very small number for a major development and does not tally with the figures shown in previous reports on the consultations. Was there a confusion between the number of objections received and the number of consultation letters sent given it’s the same figure? We may never know, especially as the Planning Officer said at the start of his speech that there was an Addendum with minor updates and he would go back to that, that time never came.
The Addendum also highlights that the planned connectivity between the new development and the Marks Gate infrastructure it relies on, via Coral Close, is at risk as LBBD said the sum offered by is insufficient for the improvements needed. Where does that leave things? This was not discussed. Although it would seem more than ‘a minor update’ to most. Will there be connectivity to the infrastructure in Marks Gate or not? Will it be useable connectivity or just a gap in a fence?
There ended the presentation. Questions were asked by some Committee members, concerns that all the pretty landscapes shown in the film would not be maintained and who would pay for it.
The wrong speakers were called with those against Site A called to speak on Site B. Nevertheless, they did a great job. Our Chair Vanessa was permitted to complete her sentence having over run the bell by a second or two.
With a full gallery of supporters the speakers received cheers and applause. The Chair asked everyone to refrain and true to AHDA form, thinking of Our Ron, this was largely ignored.
Committee voted for the applications although there was 1 against both site A and B and 1 abstained Site A.
To view the recording of this Committee Meeting go to https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/about-the-council/public-meetings/committee-meetings/