Following her initial response to constituents on 26 January, Julia Lopez MP has issued an update to constituents on the planning application for a hotel in Upminster.
A full copy of Julia's update to constituents, alongside a copy of Havering Council's response to her enquiries, can be viewed below:
We have previously been in touch about the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to grant permission for a new hotel in Upminster after an appeal was lodged.
When I last wrote to you, I had been unable to access the Section 106 agreements that Havering Council had made with the applicant prior to the Inspectorate considering the appeal. I therefore promised to write to the Council to seek more information on those agreements so that we could better understand the nature of them. Specifically, I wanted to ascertain whether any conditions had been added by the council that might address concerns about things like the hotel's bulk. Since then, many constituents have raised an additional concern that the potential overlooking of St. Joseph’s Primary School had not been adequately considered, so I raised that point with the Council too.
Havering’s planning team have now got back to me and I have posted a copy of the Council’s response below as well as placing associated documents on my website given the level of community interest.
They have reiterated that the primary reasons for their initial opposition to the plan was down to the bulk and scale of the design, traffic flow and loss of outlook and light to nearby properties. They have clarified that the reasons for refusal on those grounds were maintained throughout the appeal process. Unfortunately, it is therefore the case that the bulk and scale remain unmitigated and the Council has no further powers to compel changes on these grounds.
Within their response the Council has confirmed that Section 106 agreements were made in relation to three of the five reasons for refusal: carbon reduction, air quality and training and recruitment. Alongside these comments, the Council have provided a copy of an overall Statement of Common Ground between itself and the applicant. This document confirms that, given commitments made by the developer to address these issues, the Council chose not to pursue these matters within the appeals process as it was satisfied that the applicant had addressed these areas of concern. As set out above, the Council’s concerns relating to the overall scale of the proposal and its impact upon local traffic flows remained matters of dispute and were therefore adjudicated on by the Inspector. Copies of the Statement of Common Ground and individual agreements can be accessed on my website at the above link.
On the issue of potential overlooking of St. Joseph’s Primary School from the hotel, the Council have stated that they do not have concerns with this relationship due to the forty metres between the site and school, and due to the absence of hotel room windows facing the school. I hope that this is a welcome assurance to those who highlighted this concern.
I know that many residents continue to worry that the hotel may be used for asylum accommodation. In my initial response I advised that the Government had announced in October that it would be ending this policy and would not be looking to enter new contracts for new hotel sites. Since then, I have received further assurances from the Home Office that they are not seeking to procure hotels in general and, in response to a specific rumour that the Palms Hotel on the A127 may be used for such purpose, that they had no plans to use this hotel. I hope that these comments will be reassuring and you can view the correspondence I received from the Home Office on this topic on my website at: Update: Palms Hotel | Julia Lopez MP
While I recognise that the disappointment at the Planning Inspectorate’s decision will continue, I hope that this response is helpful in providing some clarity on the processes that were followed in arriving at this outcome.
With best wishes,
Julia
Julia Lopez MP
Member of Parliament for Hornchurch and Upminster
Havering Council Response:
Having noted the content of issues raised by the local residents, I have the following comments;
The planning application (Ref; P1585.22) for the “redevelopment of the site to provide a part 4 and part 5 storey building comprising a hotel and town centre commercial uses (shops, offices or café / restaurant – at ground floor)” was refused by the Council on 16-01-23.
The main reason for refusal related to the excessive overall bulk and scale of the scheme. It was the view of officers reviewing the proposal that the building would over-dominate the smaller scale townscape of the town centre, and lead to poor living conditions for nearby residents through loss of outlook and light.
Officers were also concerned that the proposal failed to make adequate provision for servicing and taxi pickups with subsequent adverse impact upon free flow of traffic.
In addition to the main reason for refuse the council also cited the following:
- Due to inability to secure contributions towards carbon reduction, the proposal fails to provide a sustainable development, contrary to the provisions of Policies 33 and 36 of the Local Plan and Policy S13 of the London Plan.
- In the absence of an acceptable mitigation report, the proposal would result in harm to air quality contrary to Policy 33 of the Local Plan.
- In the absence of a legal agreement to provide a training and recruitment scheme for the local workforce during the construction period, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Policy 22 of the Local Plan.
However, as part of their appeal, the appellants provided draft legal agreements, pledging to make financial contribution with respect to carbon offset and training and recruitment. The Legal Agreement, in effect, addressed these reasons for refusal. The Planning Inspector concluded that the legal agreements in relation to points 1 and 3 above were required, but not in relation to point 2.
The planning inspectorate approved the scheme on 16-01-24. The appeal Inspector clearly placed different weight on the planning issues in coming to their decision, finding the scale of the building to be appropriate and traffic impact to be acceptable. The Legal Agreements on carbon offset and training/recruitment were appropriate.
It should also be noted that the Council has also received a number of letters from the local residents citing concern that they were never notified of the outcome of the appeal. With respect to consultation for the appeal the Council would notify all residents who were consulted during the application stage and in particular those who raised objections to the scheme. I have attached a copy of the appeal notification letter, which advises how those objecting to the scheme would need to go about raising their objections. However, the Council does not send out notifications of the appeal decision. As stated in the appeal letter (attached), when the decision is made “the decision will be published on the Planning Portal.” The letter further advises that “One can download a copy of the decision notice from our council website or a hard copy can be requested (at a charge) by contacting us direct.” I can confirm that the Council’s website has been updated to reflect the outcome of the appeal and a copy of the appeal decision is also available on-line to be viewed.
I have attached the legal agreements, the statement of the common ground and the appeal letter for your information.
A further issue that you have raised is in relation to the proximity of the school to the proposal. At over 40 metres away, there are no concerns with this relationship. In addition there are no hotel room bedroom windows in the rear part of the site facing toward the school.
I hope the above would clarify the position, but if you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
