Planning Application P0705.26 - link to Havering Planning Portal Entry

Former Homebase site, Davidson Way, Romford.

Romford Civic Society (the Society) objects to this application on the grounds that it fails to meet two of the key policy goals of Romford Masterplan:  the River Rom and the height and massing of development.

The Masterplan is clear that restoration of the River Rom to improve ecosystems, biodiversity and the visual attractiveness of central Romford and beyond is one of its central goals.

The Blue Strategy for water in the centre of the town at paragraph 5.2.2.2 on page 52 is clear;  the River Rom is “central to Romford’s history and should form key elements of future identity”.  Earlier on page 18, the document establishes that the restoration of the river is pivotal to the creation of a distinctive local environment in the town, saying that opening it up “offers an opportunity to create a new public linear park, improving the ecology and providing an attractive, waterfront public space that is distinctly Romford.”  This central place of restoring the river to the policies in the Masterplan is reinforced on numerous other occasions within the document.  For example, on page 34 opening up the river is the first action identified in the “key moves” section.  Again, at paragraph 5.4.2.1 on page 78, opening up the River Rom is the first action identified in the section about actions which should be taken to enhance environmental resilience.  In addition to this, the Masterplan makes it clear that the opening up of the Rom is one of the aspects of the proposals which has the most public support (page 29).

In greater detail, the Masterplan establishes that the restored River Rom will be the vital centrepiece of a new network of blue (water) and green (ecological) networks running through the town, which will improve water quality, enhance ecology and create attractive public spaces (page 37).  It explains how opening up the river in the centre of the town, “removing culverts and naturalising its course” will “provide a continuous ecological corridor of public realm through Romford, and enhanced hydraulic capacity” (page 78) before continuing that this will provide “a more desirable place to live and work and encourage the use and interest of the outdoors and create opportunities for the local community.” (page 78).  The aim of the (properly consulted-upon and adopted as policy by the local authority) Masterplan is to showcase Romford “as a forward-thinking town centre.  Environments should always be designed so they are able to thrive, supply a diverse range of materials, flora and fauna that is interconnected throughout Romford.”

The Masterplan is specific that the role of the site subsumed within this planning application is absolutely vital to its policies for the river and the town in general.  At page 81 it establishes that the environmental quality of this section of the river is currently very poor.  With precise and specific reference to the section of river covered by this application, it says that:

“Development should take full advantage of the Rom by creating a lush green landscape that celebrates the water course, opens it up for public access and improves biodiversity.  This section of the Masterplan offers most opportunities to enhance the course of the river and restore its ecological value.” (emphasisours, Romford Civic Society)

In this clear policy context, the aspects of this planning application relating to the river could most kindly be described as extremely disappointing and, the Society argues, constitute clear grounds for refusal based on the policies of Romford Masterplan.

The River Condition Assessment supplied with the application makes it clear that the current condition of the River Rom at this location is poor.  Of 31 assessed criteria in 7, including artificial profile extent, reinforcement extent, reinforcement severity, channel bed reinforcement extent and channel bed reinforcement severity, the river currently scores -4 (minus 4), the lowest grade possible.  It scores one -3 (minus 3), one minus 1, 10 scores of zero, 10 scores of 1 and three scores of 2.  In no cases at all does it achieve any marks in the higher available scores of plus 3 and plus 4.

The Assessment shows that the condition of the river would hardly improve at all as a result of this application.  It would still receive 6 -4 (minus 4) scores (including all five of those identified above), 11 scores of zero, 11 scores of 1 and 3 scores of 2.  There would still be no scores in the higher 3 or 4 categories.

Clearly, the application does not accord with the policies approved in the Romford Masterplan for the River Rom and should be refused on the grounds that it fails to advance one of the features identified as most important in that plan.

To turn to height and massing.

Once again, the Masterplan is explicit: the predominant height on this site will be 4-8 storeys.  This is established numerous times throughout the document, to cite just one example; paragraph 5.6.2.2 on page 94.

The applicants making this proposal have included buildings up to and including a height of 16 storeys on the site, twice the maximum number of storeys identified in policy.

The application seeks to circumvent the requirement that buildings be no more than 8 storeys here by referring to the height of previously approved neighbouring developments on adjoining or nearby sites such as the former Seedbed Centre, Bridge Close and the ice-rink site.

The Society would counter this argument by pointing out that none of these developments have yet been started and, indeed, there are amended planning applications beginning to be submitted for them which have not yet been determined.  Therefore, we would argue that these un-commenced schemes cannot be taken as a precedent for this application.  Secondly, we would argue that the bulk of the neighbouring proposals that the applicant refers to were approved prior to the adoption of the Masterplan after proper public consultation by the local authority, and that a key goal of adopting the Masterplan was to re-establish coherence in planning policy, to achieve national and regional development goals in ways which enhance the environment of Romford.  In this context it is important that the implementation of Masterplan policies is supported if development is to happen positively.

For this reason, we argue that the application should be refused on the grounds that it does not accord with the policies on height and massing detailed in Romford Masterplan.

There are other aspects of the scheme in which we have an interest.

We note attention to the detail of brick finishes proposed in the application and welcome this.  To ensure this continues, we suggest that – should the scheme be approved – the architects are retained for the whole duration of the construction and finishing period to ensure that any replacement products required are of similar interest and quality.

We whole-heartedly support the recommendation in the Heritage Report that discussions about archaeological investigation of the site are pursued with the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service, bearing in mind the role of the site as a priority area for archaeology and the potential of the site to yield information about the development and migration of settlements during the Medieval period, among other things.

We argue that particular care be taken over boundary treatments, quality of materials and finishes used, as well as the ongoing maintenance of planted areas, as the effective and smart setting of buildings is a key aspect of the impression which schemes make on those viewing them.