I have just returned from the Planning Regulatory meeting at which the Grove Farm Development was discussed. I have partially Good News...11/12 councillors voted in favour of a deferment of the East Thames planning application. They felt that the project was of a high density and would leach local services of their already depleted worth. Councillors also suggested the traffic management plan was extremely weak. This really is a good result when you consider the turbulent history in Chadwell an area subjected to continuous over-development.
I spoke for a paltry two minutes which was all that members of the public are offered (the usual democratic prohibition), no questions were asked of me and I highlighted issues with Child safety from increased traffic, limited school places, increase of parking burden and associated potential developments such as the Chadwell Centre, and the recent decision by Kinked George to charge hospital staff for parking. I also included comments from a school Governor from Chadwell Primary school concerned about the Right Hand Filter lane and the preservation of a community of stag beetles (a threatened Species), located at Grove Farm.
Our Liberal Councillors also spoke distinctly about the limited number school places and like most democratic board meetings an argument ensued - based on whether such concerns warranted discussion at a planning regulatory meeting. In the end tired of debating the authority of such concerns councillors moved on to other subjects.
Councillors around the table argued over the size, scale, unaesthetic quality, limited school places, Traffic management concerns. An argument also engulfed the meeting based on the inability of East Thames to fulfill Section 106 payments (Contractor payments to the council to subsidise the potential increases in resources and amenities, to balance any shortcomings arising from land development i.e. funding towards school capacity building to cater for new children in the area). I personally am concerned that our council can waiver some of their prescribed charges to developers when the money should be used for community good. Besides even in a recession I find it hard to believe that developers do not gain. I was also very concerned about the manner in which Children Service Managed to calculate that only 25 new children would be introduced to chadwell following such a large development (116 units containing 365 rooms of which 296 rooms are in multiple room units?)? They assume that there are no single mothers in Social housing in 1 bed flats?
View design:
http://planning.redbridge.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00002629.pdf
Finally.... the chair our Deputy Mayor suggested that the Planning Application be deferred whilst East Thames reconsidered their development plan to take on board the comments made by councillors.
I believe this is good news as from the outset Chadwell Greens have stated we are not against a housing and commercial development. We have challenged for a reduction in scale and it would seem that our highlighting of the concerns in the media have resulted in a favourable decision. Perhaps even councillors have realised that if they keep permitting over development than our already prohibitive schools capacity will further burden the whole council. Lets hope East Thames come up with a more suitable project - based on community need and desire.
After much debate and a lot of canvassing we have for the first time ever a Residents Action Group for Chadwell. Your first ever Chairman is Michael Pit who you will have read about in last weeks Ilford Recorder...he is one of the allotment holders that complained about recent allotment arson attacks. This is the first step in a concerted effort to make "A Cleaner and Safer Chadwell" the new motto and primary aim of the Group. 
