Bellway back out of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain requirement - Billet Road Site B

Bellway are trying to back out of the 10% BNG requirement set by Redbridge Council

When Redbridge approved Bellway's enabling works application to cap the contaminated landfill they stated:

"In order to mitigate this loss (permanent major effect on habitat) and achieve a net biodiversity gain a pre commencement condition will be secured requiring submission of a strategy demonstrating biodiversity enhancement for the site in order to mitigate the loss from the enabling works.

The strategy shall include details of how, where and when a 10% biodiversity net gain calculated in line with Table 2 of CIEEM Biodiversity Net Gain reprt and audit templates (July 2021) and based on the baseline Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment (Urban Edge Environmental Consulting, Sept 2022) can be achieved. 
Reasons: In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policy LP39 of the Local Plan and Policy G6 of the London Plan (requires a net biodiversity gain in schemes). Also relevant LP19 Climate change mitigation, LP37 Green Infrastructure & Blue Ribbon network, LP38 Protecting Trees and Enhancing the Landscape."

One year on, Bellway now disagree with the 10% BNG saying it was not mandatory at the time and they won't know a strategy demonstrating how, where and when a biodiversity net gain will be delivered before the enabling works start. 

Is it true that they don't know? on their website they say 'how' and 'where'.

Bellway are working with landscape consultants to design a dense planted buffer which will not only promote the privacy of existing residents along the length of the eastern boundary of the site, but also provide useful green amenity space and improve local biodiversity  

What does Bellway think about Biodiversity?

Bellway Group Head of Biodiversity, said: “This is such an important topic as we look to understand, and enhance biodiversity within our developments. By providing enhancements to habitats, we are working to find the best possible solutions for our customers and the communities we create and increase the prevalence of nature within every new development."

.

On 12-12-2023 Bellway published "Bellway is committed to achieving at least a 10% Biodiversity Net Gain on all new sites submitted for planning from July 2023" 

Over 6 months before 10% BNG became mandatory!

Should it matter when 10% BNG became mandatory?

• Redbridge require a 10% BNG for the capping application, due to the complete loss of biodiversity as a result of the application. Relevant LP Policies, LP19, LP37, LP38, LP39
• Redbridge can add conditions at their discretion, they provided their reasons. The condition is precise and reasonable.
• Bellway did not object to this condition at the time or during the last year.
• If Redbridge have to re-consider the application then 10% BNG is now mandatory. 
• If Redbridge remove the condition they will set a precidence and have to do the same for other approved developments. We have found at least 4 approved around the same time with 10% BNG conditions. Along with many others nationally. 
• Redbridge declared a climate emergency on 20th June 2019. 
• Natural England would need to be consulted over any changes.
• EIA scoping recommends additional compensatory habitat enhancement and or creation needs to be embedded and secured by condition.

Is Bellway's sudden concern over 10% BNG due to their Site B development proposals NOT SATISFYING the now mandatory BNG trading rules ?

TO COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE CONDITION OF 10% BNG

go to Redbridge Planning Portal  
https://planning.redbridge.gov.uk/redbridge/application-details/199878

If the link doesn't work for you click here and search for Application No 3376/22/01

Non-material amendment to approved permission 3376/22: amend the wording of Condition 16 (Biodiversity Net Gain). Refer to cover letter online for full details. (Summary).

Contaminated Land Billet Road RM6 - to be 'Capped' but does anyone know about this?

Contaminated Land at Billet Road RM6 to be 'capped' over the next 3 years

Bellway Homes have sent a nice newsletter to all the residents on the left hand side of this map, but all those living on the right hand side in London Borough of Barking and Dagenham have been left in the dark again!

If you live in Billet Rd, Rowan Way, Coral Close, Uplands Road, Hope Close, Nash Road, Cavalier Close, Gregory Road, Kallar Lodge, Marks Gate, this is going to effect you!

So to help out here is the newsletter 

Redbridge to sell Council owned land to developers

In a Redbridge Cabinet meeting on 14 Sept 2021 the Leader (Jas Athwal) and Cabinet member for Growth and Operations introduced the report and the meeting resolved: That the valuation and sale (land at Billet Road) be approved.

The Council is the owner of 24.7 acres of land at Billet Road. 

A larger piece of land 49 acres has already been allocated for development having been removed from the Green Belt despite the Mayor of London refusing saying the land meets the requirements for Green Belt. The green space here has never been built on. But it was a gravel extraction and unlicensed landfill site.

On the same date the Council decided to change from 'Build to Rent' to 'Build to Sell.'

Its all somewhat confusing given that The Leader, Jas Athwal told the Ilford Recorder :

“It’s difficult enough to see much-needed houses and flats lost forever to right to buy. We already have far fewer council homes than neighbouring boroughs and have lost many properties to this scheme.

But my heart sinks when I see data like this. There’s something wrong when people are making huge profits by quickly selling on properties bought at below market prices.”

While back in Aug 2018, Jas Athwal said:

"The council is becoming more “entrepreneurial” he said, buying up properties in Redbridge, and over the next five years he has promised to build 1,000 new high-quality council homes." Ilford Recorder 

There may be a different conclusion but in our eyes this is hypocrisy. The Council owned land could have been used to build Council homes. 

Curious to know if the sale price was the same as the valuation and where and when this piece of land was advertised for sale - anyone know??

From Save our Green Spaces - Hainault Community Group

 From our friends at 'Save our Green Spaces - Hainault Community Group (Facebook):

"This is the next big fight that we will have to undertake against Redbridge Council and their constant desire to destroying green spaces. Picture 1 shows Barking and Dagenham Marks Gate A12 green space development. Phase 1 in Orange, phase 2 in Blue. Phase 1 takes in the reconstruction of the Padnell lake. This will total 250 new houses at 8 storeys tall. Picture 2 shows Redbridge land grab which includes West Ham United training ground in Yellow. Orange sees the old landfill contaminated land which had it's green belt status taken away. Blue sees what is rumoured to include Little Heath school being totally demolished and moved. Total over 1000 houses. Picture 3 shows Green belt recreation ground which was decommissioned by Redbridge to allow it to be built on. Picture 4 Orange shows Oakfields playing ground, Bealonians ground which is being offered to West Ham United as part of the deal for them to leave Little Heath. This could also incorporate that in Blue the land of Old Parkonians ground as well. So this site will be completely lost to the residents as this would become exclusive use by West Ham United football club. Old Parkonians was founded in 1902 and the cricket team then founded in 1906, Old Bealonians was then founded in 1936, it is the largest club in the area. The site also incorporates the Jack Carter pavillion which would also be lost for public use so this is such a bitter bitter blow for Oakfields playing fields. Now it's becoming clearer why Redbridge council want to review their green belt policy later this year instead of 2030."

Proposals for 1,100 new homes in Little Heath spark traffic fears - Billet Road

The last Redbridge local plan included opportunity site at Billet Road (Site99) for a Secondary school and 800 + new homes. What will the next Draft Local Plan say - due out soon?

The roads here can't cope with current traffic and that is before the development at Marks Gate with additional 291 homes and further 'regeneration' in the pipeline.

Ilford Recorder 

Chris Gannaway, a member of the Aldborough Hatch Defence Association’s executive committee prepared a report in response to the plans. He said: “It is going to be horrendous for traffic the area. In my opinion, of all the sites listed in the Local Plan this is the worst. There is no way the current infrastructure can deal with it.

“We’re 2.5km from the nearest station, so people can’t walk, and the bus service is dire because the traffic in the area is so bad.”

Even in lockdown the situation was no different.

No new schools needed in Redbridge - so are new homes needed?

 Ilford recorder report on the Schools' Funding Forum meeting: "Council says plans for two new schools should stop"

The reasons given are:

• Birth Rate down "Live births in Redbridge increased until 2015 and then started to decline. Between 2017 and 2019, there was a 4.5% decrease in the live birth rate within the borough and when it becomes available, we expect that data for 2020 and on into the next few years will see the trend of falling birth rates continue.
  
  
• Migration " the impact of outward migration" people leaving and less people moving from inner to outer London. They are moving out of London altogether. "Migration from other parts of the world is virtually non-existent"

Begs the question if less families / children means less schools then why are more new homes needed?

Forum Minutes 

Redbridge accused of keeping Marks Gate residents in the dark

Redbridge accused of keeping Marks Gate residents in the dark about Billet Road site development.

According to the article in Barking & Dagenham Post Jon Cruddas MP wrote to the (Redbridge) authority’s housing chief after people in Coral Close and Uplands Road in Marks Gate raised concerns over a series of issues during work in nearby Billet Road, Aldborough Hatch.

The MP for Dagenham and Rainham has urged Redbridge Council not to leave neighbours “in the dark” over building work on green belt land.

As the local residents know, this is totally accurate. None of the LBBD residents were informed by Redbridge or the site owners that these works were to be carried out nor have they been told what and when to expect any further developments.

They have also not been told that this is contaminated land due to the unlicensed tip there in the 1970's and what precautions should have been taken while they dug up the land, none were. 

Should any LBBD residents decide to look at Redbridge planning (why would they?) they would see the planning application for the hoarding fence  but as the site is adjacent to LBBD residents in Billet Road, Rowan Way, Coral Close, Uplands Road, Hope Close and a short distance from Kallar Lodge Residential Care Home they should have all been informed.

Not only about the work on the site but also its removal from Green Belt by Redbridge despite the Mayor of London refusing this request.

Gold Rush: Developer, Redbridge family and football tycoon in scrap over former rubbish tip that could soon be worth £10million. 

LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE URGED TO PROTECT GREEN SPACES TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE

NEWS RELEASE
1st July 2019: Release time immediate

LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE URGED TO PROTECT GREEN SPACES TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE

Local authorities in London and the Home Counties which have declared a 'Climate Emergency' in their districts, and which propose to adopt strategies and action plans to tackle climate change, are being urged to include policies of stronger protection for green spaces in their plans, as these provide vital climate change mitigation.

The London Green Belt Council (LGBC), which represents over 100 environmental and community groups across the region, warns that some local councils are being inconsistent by declaring a Climate Emergency but failing to prevent development on Green Belt countryside and open spaces which provide vital mitigation for climate change. Some of these local authorities are even putting forward large swathes of Green Belt land for housebuilding despite their professed commitment to environmental protection.

LGBC Chair Richard Knox-Johnston says: "The Green Belt is a vital green lung for people in London and the wider South East. By protecting green spaces it is making a hugely important contribution to people's health and well-being as well as maintaining essential eco-systems and providing wildlife corridors.

"Green spaces help to mitigate climate change because carbon is absorbed by vegetation and held long-term in soils emissions. They also help us adapt to climate change by absorbing rainwater and cooling our towns and cities. The more green space we lose, the more we are at risk from flooding and rising temperatures, two of the predicted effects of climate change.

"District and borough councils are absolutely right to recognise the seriousness of climate change and to acknowledge the role that local government can play in tackling the climate crisis, but if they do not also pledge to defend the Green Belt and countryside from development then they are failing in their duty to protect our communities and environment."

The LGBC is calling on all local authorities to state categorically that climate change mitigation requires the protection of Green Belt countryside and open spaces, and to agree to block developers' proposals for building on Green Belt land. This is especially important, the LGBC points out, at a time when London itself needs to become more resilient to climate emergencies which means it needs to have plenty of green spaces around it.

Mr Knox-Johnston adds: "Giving up Green Belt to development is an easy answer to the housing shortage but actually it does nothing to improve the affordability of housing - all it does is leave communities with less greenspace. In fact, there has never been a greater need to protect the Green Belt from development."

The LGBC is currently working with a wide range of partner organisations to produce a consultation paper setting out "A Vision for the Future of London's Green Belt". This emphasises the Green Belt's value for health and well-being, biodiversity and environmental sustainability, and its crucial importance to the fight against climate change.

For further information on the work of the LGBC, go to

LONDONGREENBELTCOUNCIL.ORG.UK

London Green Belt Council – protecting London's Green Belt

About us The London Green Belt Council brings together over 100 organisations including councils, residents & environmental groups with a shared concern for London's Green Belt. The Council meets three times a year in Parliament. There is an executive committee which meets more frequently. We also p...

Council accused of "ignoring" residents in consultation

The East London & West Essex Guardian reports that Redbridge council has been accused of “ignoring residents’ feedback” when it submitted a bid to house three famous London markets.

Kartik Parekh did some analysis from a Freedom of Information request he made requesting information about the feedback received from the consultations held by LBR  on the three markets. The analysis is as follows:

There were a total of 64 feedback forms received, where at least one question was answered on the form.

The feedback forms asked residents what they felt were "the most important benefits of the proposal?” and to “rank the benefits stated by importance 1 being the most important and 8 being least important”. The responses were as shown in the pic below.

For the same question there was an “other” box for residents who wished to write something else. There were 30% (19/64) of responses from the feedback forms received which stated “there are no benefits” or something similar to that effect. Furthermore there were 31% (20/64) of responses from the feedback forms received which did not answer this question, suggesting that approximately 61% (30% + 31%) of responses from the feedback forms saw no benefits either by explicitly stating so or by leaving the question entirely blank.

In question 5 of the feedback form, responses from the feedback forms received showed the following results:

• Only 6% (4/64) ticked the box “I support the proposal”
• Only 8% (5/64) ticked the box “I support the proposal with reservations”
• 11% (7/64) ticked the box “I have some concerns about the proposal”
• A whopping 67% (43/64) ticked the box “I oppose the proposal”
• Only 6% (4/64) of forms left this question blank

Similarly in question 6, which was a free text area for residents to write what they wish to an open ended “Do you have any further comments” question, 56% (36/64) of responses from the feedback forms received had a negative response or stated opposition to the project.

Finally in question 7, 44% (28/64) of responses from the feedback forms received showed that residents found the event useful.

Add to the above all the 'post it notes' seen here https://billetroad.blogspot.com/2019/03/redbridge-public-meeting-info-feedback.html

How these responses helped in shaping “a strong, credible proposal” as mentioned by Cllr Athwal. Furthermore at the Council meeting on the 20th June in response to my speech for the petition to debate on this matter which had 3300+ signatures opposing the three markets development, Cllr Athwal said that he makes “no apology” for seeking to bring the three markets to Redbridge. It appears from my analysis that he is ignoring residents’ feedback and doing what he sees fit.

Furthermore, Kartik reached out to the council to request any comments on the analysis - no reply.

And to top it all according to another FOI request the cost of the bid was £33,084, that seems low or underestimated and probably not cover the consultants fees but nevertheless £33,094 wasted!

What else could LBR have done with the £33k that would actually have helped the residents of the borough?

Tesco Towers Tirade - Redbridge Site 67

Massive implications of the Tesco Towers proposed by LBR and Weston Homes.

Site 67 - 822 High Road, Goodmayes Plan for Tesco's site started off as 449 homes, a primary school and a Health Facility.

Then is became 1360 apartments

According to Weston Homes, the developers, its actually up to 1400 homes. Now with workshops and cafes (its not like there are no cafes there at the moment!). And .. 'creation of an enhanced public realm on the site'. 

A 'realm' a kingdom, a sovereign state?? how about the existing Realm and 'the defense of the Realm'?

Weston Homes go to some length to say that Tesco will maintain a continuity of trading throughout the creation of this. What of the lives of local residents?

The partnership 'Weston and Tesco' are looking to create a new community. At the expense of the existing community?

Sign THE PETITION Objections to the proposal states:

Over population - adding at least 3000 more people to a densely populated area. And that is before the numerous other developments in the same area are taken into consideration. No point looking at the number of proposed homes, its bound to be tripled!

Redbridge's Local Plan states that Redbridge has the joint 2nd highest average household size in England and Wales of 2.8, making over-crowding a real issue, with 5,848 households found to be over-crowded. Exactly how does adding another 3000+ people help?

Incidentally, how are they planing to go from 449 homes to 1400? Tower Blocks!. 22 floor tower blocks. Given recent history (can a fire engine get up 22 floors) and all the research on the detrimental effects of creating tower blocks why is this even being considered when many have been pulled down.

The evidence cited is compelling. Survey after survey, in country after country, shows that people don’t like high-rise blocks. They want five storeys, maximum. They like private gardens, not communal space. People who actually live in multi-storeys don’t want to have families there. The adults suffer from more stress, mental health difficulties, neurosis and marital discord – and the children suffer from more stress, hyperactivity, hostility and juvenile delinquency. Suicides are higher. So are vandalism and anti-social behaviour. There is less of a sense of community and interaction. (https://capx.co/the-trouble-with-tower-blocks/)

Local Residents are angry - yes LBR they are the ones that pay for your service. The ones you are responsible to, the ones who have paid council tax year on year. Not the new people (or foreign investors) you want to bring to the borough. The ones living here now.

Redbridge intend to hold the 'Drop ins' that have become common place round here. And yes we are getting used to what happens.

Very few residents (if any) receive notification, when questioned you will say you are not responsible for Royal Mail. You say they will listen to residents' concerns and thank us for them while totally ignoring them (go on prove us wrong - please!).

Just in case you haven't received the invite to the Drop In's here are the dates:

Thurs 16 May 2019 11.30am - 3pm
Fri      17 May 2019, 2.00pm - 8pm
Sat      18 May 2019, 10.30am - 2.30pm

A chance to meet like -minded residents. Will Tesco be offering free drinks?

We are sure that the council think that we don't see the bigger picture, that we don't want change, that we don't understand the need for housing.

We do see the bigger picture, we do want change, we don't want this housing, its just a completely different song sheet, one you are not listening to.

One thing London Borough of Redbridge are succeeding in is bringing the community together albeit against their plans. See you at the next drop in.

Building New Homes earn Redbridge £20,221,657 Bonus

Building new homes in Redbridge - pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow for LBR.

In the last 5 yrs LBR have received £20,221,657 bonus to use as they see fit.

Rainbow over Billet Road

For each new home constructed, the Government provides a New Homes Bonus by match funding for the Council tax liable (set as the national average council tax for the relevant band of property). 

This is adjusted for the increase or decrease in the number of empty homes, and an additional £350 per year premium for affordable homes is applied.

There has been a year on year increase in the level of New Homes Bonus Redbridge has received due to the increase in numbers of homes built.

Not only the New Homes Bonus but there is also the CIL. Redbridge received £490,656 in the last year and have a further £10, 276 004 on the way as new builds are completed.

No wonder they are so keen to build on every blade of grass in the area!

But Redbridge have done little to get empty properties back in to use.

There were 462 empty homes in 2017 and increase of 188 from the previous year.

462 empty homes??  oh and only 71 returned to use in 2018.

Source Redbridge Local PlanAuthority Monitoring Report 2017 – 18