1 From: DPD (Planning Service Area) Subject: FW: Submissions to POE Consultation on behalf of Ford (Email 1 of 2) Attachments: LBR POE Consultation_Ford Motor Company Limited.pdf; Response Form_Ford Motor Company Limited (2).pdf; Initial Flood Risk Assessment_Environ.pdf; Site Access Appraisal_Iceni Projects (Transport)_Complete (2).pdf Importance: High 2 nd email with Site Access Appraisal attached Regards Andrew From: Andrew Gale [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 December 2014 16:47 To: DPD (Planning Service Area) Cc: Jayme Radford Subject: Submissions to POE Consultation on behalf of Ford (Email 1 of 2) Importance: High Dear Sir/Madam Please find attached representations submitted on behalf of our client, Ford, in respect of the Preferred Options Extension Consultation. A further email will follow with a report on site access. We would be grateful if you could please acknowledge receipt of these submission ahead of the deadline. Kind regards Andrew Andrew Gale MRTPI Director, Planning telephone: 020 3435 4230 mobile: 07875 672 061 twitter: @iceniprojects web: www.iceniprojects.com Flitcroft House 114-116 Charing Cross Road London WC2H 0JR Iceni isn't doing Christmas cards this year… Instead, we’ve gone into the recording studio to produce a song for you in the hope that we can persuade you to make a donation to our friends at St Mungo's Broadway. To watch our video please click here. To donate to St Mungo's Broadway please click here. Thank you. The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information.
Transcript
1
Carly Herod
From: DPD (Planning Service Area)Subject: FW: Submissions to POE Consultation on behalf of Ford (Email 1 of 2)Attachments: LBR POE Consultation_Ford Motor Company Limited.pdf; Response Form_Ford
Motor Company Limited (2).pdf; Initial Flood Risk Assessment_Environ.pdf; Site Access Appraisal_Iceni Projects (Transport)_Complete (2).pdf
Importance: High
2nd email with Site Access Appraisal attached
Regards
Andrew
From: Andrew Gale [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 December 2014 16:47 To: DPD (Planning Service Area) Cc: Jayme Radford Subject: Submissions to POE Consultation on behalf of Ford (Email 1 of 2) Importance: High
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find attached representations submitted on behalf of our client, Ford, in respect of the Preferred Options Extension Consultation. A further email will follow with a report on site access.
We would be grateful if you could please acknowledge receipt of these submission ahead of the deadline.
Flitcroft House 114-116 Charing Cross RoadLondon WC2H 0JR
Iceni isn't doing Christmas cards this year… Instead, we’ve gone into the recording studio to produce a song for you in the hope that we can persuade you to make a donation to our friends at St Mungo's Broadway. To watch our video please click here. To donate to St Mungo's Broadway please click here. Thank you.
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information.
Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030
Preferred Options Report Extension – Alternative Development Strategies Response Form
If you wish to discuss the options directly with us before responding, a programme of consultation events will be held during November and December 2014. Details are available on Redbridge i www.redbridge.gov.uk/ldf or by phoning 020 8708 2748.
This response form can also be completed online at Redbridge i. Please respond by 22 December 2014.
1. Do you have any general comments on the planning challenges facing the Borough?
2. What do you think about Option 1 – proceed with Oakfields?
3. What do you think about Option 2 – Find another site - increase the proposed development at land in and around Goodmayes and King George hospitals and the Ford Sports Ground in Seven Kings / Chadwell Heath?
4. What do you think about Option 3 – Western Corridor - Woodford Broadway / Woodford, South Woodford and Wanstead?
5. What do you think about Option 4 – Develop Green Belt land?
A123
Ilford
Seven Kings
Newbury Park
Gants Hill
Woodford
South Woodford
Wanstead
Barkingside
Manford Way
A1199
A11
99
A118
A123
A123
A12
A12
A12
A 1140
A406 (Nth Circular)
A406
(Nth
Circ
ular
) 1
2
3
4
44
44
4
Green Belt
Woodford - Wanstead Corridor
Goodmayes
Oak�elds1
2
3
4
jradford
Text Box
PLEASE REFER TO PARAGRAPHS 4.2 - 4.15 OF THE ENCLOSED ICENI PROJECTS POE REPRESENTATIONS REPORT.
jradford
Text Box
PLEASE REFER TO PARAGRAPH 4.16 OF THE ENCLOSED ICENI PROJECTS POE REPRESENTATIONS REPORT.
jradford
Text Box
PLEASE REFER TO PARAGRAPH 4.17 AND SECTION 5 AND 6 OF THE ENCLOSED ICENI PROJECTS POE REPRESENTATIONS REPORT.
jradford
Text Box
PLEASE REFER TO PARAGRAPH 4.18 - 4.22 OF THE ENCLOSED ICENI PROJECTS POE REPRESENTATIONS REPORT.
jradford
Text Box
PLEASE REFER TO PARAGRAPHS 4.13 - 4.15, 4.23 - 4.25 AND 5.8 - 5.14 OF THE ENCLOSED ICENI PROJECTS POE REPRESENTATIONS REPORT.
6. Overall, which option do you think is best for the borough and why?
7. Are there any other realistic alternatives that the Council should consider? If so please state below:
Feel free to attach additional pages explaining your answers above.
8. Please provide your name and address details below:
Name:
Address:
Post Code: Email:
Please note that survey forms where no post code is given will not be accepted.
9. If you are responding on behalf on an organisation, please give the organisation’s name and your position below:
Submitting this form:There are a number of ways to send your completed form to us:
Complete online:
www.redbridge.gov.uk/ldf Freepost:
Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030Preferred Options Report Extension Alternative Development StrategiesPlanning and Regeneration Service,London Borough of Redbridge,Freepost RSLR – JACE – HSUGIlford IG1 1DD
Planning Policy Team – Room A1, Redbridge Town Hall128-142 High Road, Ilford
jradford
Text Box
PLEASE REFER TO SECTION 6 (PARAGRAPHS 6.1 - 6.4 OF THE ENCLOSED ICENI PROJECTS POE REPRSENTATIONS REPORT.
jradford
Text Box
PLEASE REFER TO PARAGRAPH 4.27 OF THE ENCLOSED ICENI PROJECTS POE REPRESENTATIONS REPORT.
jradford
Text Box
PLEASE REFER TO SECTION 4 - PARAGRAPH 4.28 OF THE ENCLOSED ICENI PROJECTS POE REPRESENTATIONS REPORT.
jradford
Text Box
REPRESENTATIONS ARE PROVIDED ON BEHALF OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED AND FORD SPORTS AND SOCIAL TRUST - DETAILS ARE PROVIDED AT PARAGRAPH 4.29 OF THE ENCLOSED ICENI PROJECTS POE REPRESENTATIONS REPORT.
DE
CE
MB
ER
2014
ICE
NI
PR
OJE
CT
S
LIM
ITE
D
ON
B
EH
ALF
O
F
FO
RD
MO
TO
R C
OM
PA
NY
LIM
ITE
D
Lo
nd
on
B
oro
ug
h
of
Re
db
rid
ge
L
oc
al
Pla
n
Pre
ferr
ed
O
pti
on
s
Ex
ten
sio
n:
Alt
ern
ati
ve
D
ev
elo
pm
en
t S
tra
teg
ies
Co
ns
ult
ati
on
R
EP
RE
SE
NT
AT
ION
S
ON
B
EH
ALF
O
F
FO
RD
M
OT
OR
CO
MP
AN
Y L
IMIT
ED
Iceni Projects Ltd
Flitcroft House 114-116 Charing Cross Rd, London WC2H 0JR
T 020 3640 8508 F 020 3435 4228 W iceniprojects.com
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation
park
Representations on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited
Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of
Ford Motor Company Limited
December 2014
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 2
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Job No. 14/1125
Project Ford Newbury Park Sports Ground
Title LB Redbridge Local Plan Representations
Client Ford Motor Company Limited and Fords Sports and Social Trust
File Reference Final Draft – 22.12.14
Prepared By Jayme Radford – Senior Planner
Authorised By Andrew Gale - Director
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared by Iceni Projects Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and
diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporation of our General Terms and
Condition of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to us by agreement with the
client.
We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope
of the above.
This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third
parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report
at its own risk.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 3
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS .................................................. 5
3. SITE DETAILS ............................................................................................................ 7
4. RESPONSE TO THE POE LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION ................................... 10
5. PROMOTION OF LAND AT FORD SPORTS GROUND .......................................... 17
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 26
APPENDICES
A1. SITE LOCATION PLAN
A2. EXISTING ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS
A3. FORD CURRENT PROVISION OF OPERATIONAL SITES AND SPORTS & SOCIAL
FACILITIES ACROSS THE REGION
A4. EXISTING SPORTS AND LEISURE FACILITIES WITHIN THE LONDON BOROUGH OF
REDBRIDGE
SUPPORTING TECHNICAL STATEMENTS
S1. SITE ACCESS APPRAISAL – ICENI PROJECTS LIMITED (TRANSPORT)
S2. INITIAL FLOOD RISK APPRAISAL (ENVIRON)
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Iceni Projects Limited (‘Iceni’) is appointed by Ford Motor Company Limited and the Ford Sports
and Social Trust (together referred to hereafter as “Ford” or “our client”) to advise on town planning
matters relating to land within its ownership and commercial interest at the Ford Sports and Social
Club, Newbury Park (the “Site”), within the London Borough of Redbridge (‘LBR’) a plan of the Site
is included at Appendix A1.
1.2 On behalf of our client, we welcome the opportunity to comment on the ‘Preferred Options
Extension: Alternative Development Strategies’ (‘POE’) draft of the LBR Local Plan document
which was published for formal consultation on 7th November 2014. We note that this is the
second stage of consultation following the Local Plan Preferred Options Report (‘LPPO’)
consultation conducted by LBR during January and February 2013. Our client is therefore aware
that the POE draft builds upon previous stages of the plan-making process, however recognises
that due to the level of objection received to the LPPO draft in early 2013, that there are potential
significant changes included to approach pursued by LBR for strategic development.
1.3 Ford note that following substantial objections to the allocation of c.800 dwellings at the Oakfields
site at Fullwell Cross that consideration is being given to an alternative strategy to ensure the
delivery of sufficient new housing in the borough over the period of the new Local Plan. The Ford
site at Newbury Park, together with adjoining land under the ownership of two health trusts and
Redbridge Council, is proposed as an alternative location for comprehensive development
including a substantial level of new residential.
1.4 Ford note that there was limited objection raised to potential development at the Ford Sports and
Social Club when referenced in the LPPO consultation in early 2013.
1.5 These representations provide further detail as to the availability and suitability of the Ford land for
development during the period of the new Local Plan to 2030.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 5
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
2.1 Ford is supportive of the allocation of land at the Ford Sports and Social Club, Newbury Park,
together with adjoining land at King George and Goodmayes Hospitals and land owned by
Redbridge Council to the south and east, for comprehensive development including residential.
2.2 It is felt that the site, together with adjoining land, no longer performs the purposes of the green
belt, this combined with the need to identify sufficient new housing land for the medium to long-
term period of the new Local Plan means its removal from the Green Belt and allocation for new
development can be wholly justified.
2.3 Although the Ford site is currently in use our client can confirm that the site would be available for
development during the period of the new Local Plan to 2030. In terms of deliverability, there are
no known constraints on site ownership; the site benefits from two established vehicular access
points along Aldborough Road; there are not expected to be any abnormal costs associated with
the development of the site such as site contamination or geotechnical; and, although an area of
the site would need to be set aside to mitigate flood and drainage impacts, this will not significantly
reduce the area of land available for development.
2.4 Details regarding the usage of the Ford Sports and Social Club are included within these
representations (see Section 5), however in summary, for a number of reasons, including various
restructurings in the Ford business in the East London and South Essex region during the last
decade, and in line with more general trends regarding the use of sporting facilities, the demand
and usage of facilities at the site has been in steady decline, and this trend is predicted to continue.
2.5 Ford retain a large sports and social facility at Basildon (Gardiners Lane). Ford will consider further
opportunities in sports and social facilities to best meet the needs of employees and members.
2.6 It should be noted that the Newbury Park facility is a private corporate club, and although there is
some usage by local groups and clubs, and some facilities are available for hire, this is quite
limited, and has also been in decline over a period of time. We present evidence at Section 5
which demonstrates that there is a high level of provision of sports and social facilities in the area,
the majority of these are publically available, as such it is considered that the loss of this private
corporate facility will not lead to a deficit or under-supply of sports facilities in the Borough. It is
anticipated that a development of the potential scale proposed across the Ford and adjoining sites
could necessitate an element of on-site sports provision in any event, the detail of this would need
to be established at a more detailed site allocations stage or via an outline planning application.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 6
2.7 Although we can only submit representations on behalf of Ford, we can confirm that our client is
supportive in principle to joint-working with adjoining land owners, including both the health trusts
who own the King George and Goodmayes hospital sites and the Council-owned sites to the south
and south east of the Ford site, to deliver a more comprehensive development, principally for
residential use but with potential to deliver a number of community benefits. We can also confirm
that the Ford site would be unencumbered and could provide for a phase of residential-led
development in its own right when required. These representations are supported by technical
work on both transport/highways and flood risk/drainage to demonstrate the availability and
capacity of the Ford site for new development, we have also drawn on previous work undertaken
on behalf of LBR, in particular on the review of the wider Green Belt and the work to support the
identification of sufficient housing land across the borough.
2.8 Ford can provide further information if necessary to support the allocation of the Site, and will
continue to monitor and contribute the emerging Local Plan as it reaches the Submission and
Examination stages during 2015.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 7
3. SITE DETAILS
Site Ownership
3.1 Before responding to the POE consultation it is important to set out our client’s commercial interest
in the land at the Ford Sports and Social Club, Newbury Park. Accordingly, by way of background,
we can confirm that the Trustees of the Ford Sports and Social Trust are the freehold owners of the
land located to the south of the A12 Eastern Avenue, Newbury (refer to Appendix A1). Ford Motor
Company Limited hold a leasehold interest in the land, and in turn The Ford Sports and Social Club
(Essex) are a tenant of the land under licence. The land under our client’s ownership extends to
approximately 15.8 hectares and includes an existing sports pavilion and associated playing fields.
The ownership also includes a parcel of land between numbers 170 and 172 of Aldborough Road,
to the west of the Site which currently provides an existing access point to the sports club. Our
client has also acquired a strip of land alongside the entrance the Ambulance Station to the north
west corner of the site (between 230 and 232 of Aldborough Road) which currently afford egress
from the Site to Aldborough Road close to its junction with Eastern Avenue (A12). Further details
of the site’s location and surrounding uses is included below.
Site Location and Surroundings
3.2 The Site, known as ‘The Ford Sports and Social Club, Newbury Park’, is located within Newbury, in
the LBR and comprises an existing sports pavilion and associated playing fields, extending to
approximately 15.8 hectares. The Site is bound to the north by the existing rear gardens of
residential properties which front onto the A12 (Eastern Avenue), to the west by The Ilford
Ambulance Station and existing residential properties located along Aldborough Road South and to
the south by Seven Kings Park. To the east of the Site lies the King George and Goodmayes
Hospital sites which are severed from the Ford Sports and Social Club by the river of Seven Kings
Water. As such, Seven Kings Water forms the eastern boundary of the Site. Existing vehicular
access to the Site is gained from a slip road off Aldborough Road South.
3.3 The Site is located approximately 11 miles east of Central London and within close proximity to the
settlements of Seven Kings, Chadwell and Valentines. The Site is located in an accessible location
and situated less than a ten minutes’ walk from Newbury Park underground train station and local
bus services. The Site has a PTAL rating of 3 ‘Good’.
3.4 The Site is surrounded predominantly by residential dwellings with back gardens, with the
exception to the hospital sites located to the east of the site. This screens the Site from its
surrounding urban context.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 8
Planning Policy Designations
LBR Proposals Map (2008)
3.5 The current, adopted LBR Proposals Map (2008) designates the Site within Metropolitan Green
Belt and as an area designated as a Green Corridor. As such, the Site is subject to the following
planning policy guidance – as outlined in the Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan
Document (BWDPD; 2008).
Green Belt – Policy E1
3.6 Within the Green Belt land as shown on the Proposals Map, the Council will apply national planning
policy set out in Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2) Green Belts and any successor.
Green Corridor – Policy E2
3.7 The Council will protect and where appropriate enhance the Borough’s natural heritage, including
landscape features. Planning permission will be refused for development having an adverse impact
on Green Corridors (as identified on the 2008 Proposals Map).
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment – LBR (2008)
3.8 The Ford Sports and Social Club was identified in the LBR SHLAA (2008) as having capacity to
deliver 1,030 residential units with an indicative density of 65 dwellings per hectare. The SHLAA
identified the Site as likely to come forward between 2017/18 and 2021/22. A summary of the site
reference used by LBR in the SHLAA (2008) is included in Table 1.1 below:
Table 3.1 LBR SHLAA – 2008
Site Reference
Address Area Density (dph) Residential
Units
REP15 Ford Sports and Social Club, Newbury
15.9 ha. 65 1,030
London Wide SHLAA (2013)
3.9 The 2013 London Wide SHLAA identifies sites which have been highlighted as having capacity for
future housing development within published or emerging Local Plans (as of July/August 2013) or
those which have been publically identified by boroughs. As such, our client notes that the adjacent
hospital sites at King George and Goodmayes were identified as having suitable capacity for
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 9
housing – estimated completion Phase four of the London Plan (2026-2031). The indicative
capacity for the sites is not detailed.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 10
4. RESPONSE TO THE POE LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
4.1 The following provides a consultation response on behalf of our client, Ford in response to the
question posed within the POE consultation draft.
POE Question 1 – Planning challenges facing the Borough
Do you have any general comments on the planning challenges facing the Borough?
4.2 Following review of the POE consultation document and supporting evidence base studies
prepared by LBR and its consultant team, it is apparent that LBR faces significant planning and
development challenges over the Plan period due to a combination of the forecasted rapid
population growth and increasing pressure on physical and social infrastructure. The recent
downturn in the housing industry and lack of available sites means that LBR are faced with
considerable challenges with regards to housing delivery in order to accommodate the forecasted
growth.
Housing Land Supply:
4.3 The current Core Strategy was adopted by LBR in March 2008. This publication included Strategic
Policy 7 ‘Housing’ which set a minimum housing target of 9,050 new residential dwellings during
the period of 2007/07 – 2016/17. This figure derived from the housing targets specified within the
London Plan (2006) (as revised with ‘Early’ Alterations). Strategic Policy 7 stated that the 9,050
residential units would be delivered via:
Locating new dwellings in accordance with the hierarchy detailed within the Core Strategy: 35-
50% within Ilford Metropolitan Centre, 15-25% in the District and Local Centres, and a further
25-35% throughout the rest of the Borough;
Providing a mix of dwelling types (including lifetime homes) and sizes to provide real housing
choice, with an emphasis on provision of smaller dwellings. Innovative housing solutions were
encouraged – e.g. housing in conjunction with supermarkets and retail parks;
Promoting high densities close to public transport nodes and in town centres in appropriate
locations;
Bringing empty homes back into use;
Identifying appropriate sites for additional housing with particularly emphasis on delivering
housing in the areas of greatest need and on brownfield sites; and,
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 11
Ensuring that new dwellings achieve a high level of amenity for their occupants, provide
reasonable areas of private open space and are not subject to unacceptable levels of noise.
4.4 At this stage, there was no reference within the Core Strategy to the release of Green Belt land to
support major development sites, and fundamentally assist in the delivery of the Borough’s housing
targets defined within the 2006 London Plan. However the Core Strategy did at this stage
acknowledge that unplanned growth could lead to degradation in the quality of the existing
residential areas within LBR, ad pressure to build on green spaces and exceed the capacity of
existing health, education and other social and physical infrastructure to serve the community.
4.5 At the time of publication, the Core Strategy reported that 81% of its housing target could be met
through identified development sites and windfall sites throughout the Plan period – equating to
provision of 7,787 units against the London Plan requirement of 9,050. However, the Core
Strategy reported that a five year housing land requirement could be met in the first five years of
the Plan – equating to 4,526 (identified sites and windfall) against a London Plan target of 4,525
dwellings. However, when considering the housing trajectory presented within the Core Strategy, it
is apparent that housing delivery for the 9 years prior to the adoption of the Core strategy equated
to an average of only 602 units per year. Applying solely the historic trend in housing delivery, we
believe that LBR would be subject to a shortfall of 3,030 dwellings.
4.6 More importantly, the housing targets that inform the Core Strategy are based on the London
Housing Capacity Study which was undertaken during 2004 and is now 10 years old. Further, this
was a desk-top assessment which relied on a series of London-wide assumptions about the
capacity of potential sites to accommodate housing development and their probability of actually
being developed for housing purposes.
4.7 The Further Alterations to the London Plan (2011) (as revised with early minor amendments in
2013) (‘FALP’) was published to highlight the growing concerns regarding housing delivery and
population growth across London. The FALP was informed by the London Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment (‘SHLAA’) 2015-2025 which identified a future housing target of 42,000
units per annum across the London Boroughs. However it is widely reported that the 42,000 target
represented units that can reasonably be achieved within the existing planning policy constraints,
and actually the figure required to meet the needs across the whole of London is more towards
49,000 units as reported within the London Strategic Market Assessment (2013).
4.8 As such, the FALP proposes more of a shift on the London Boroughs to accommodate London’s
housing target. In the case of LBR, the FALP proposes an increase to 1,123 new dwellings per
annum which represents a significant increase of c. 48%.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 12
4.9 We have reviewed LBR’s response to the FALP consultation (April 2014) and are aware that whilst
LBR are generally content with the proposals within the Plan, that LBR has concerns with regards
to the housing policy revisions, and in particular the requirement for London Boroughs to find
capacity to deliver the gap in provision between the SHLAA and SHMAA figures – i.e. an additional
7,000 dwellings.
4.10 The Inspectors Report for the FALP was published in early December 2014 and confirms both the
need to proceed with the increased housing targets across London and also sets a requirement to
commence an immediate full review of the London Plan, as such it is apparent that LBR will need
to find additional land for future housing in this version of the Local Plan and probably further
thereafter. Whilst the FALP sets a revised housing target of 1,123 new homes per annum, our
client is aware that the Redbridge Housing Need Study (2010) proposed an even higher target of
2,000 dwellings per annum.
4.11 Our client notes that the 2012/2013 Annual Monitoring report states that LBR can demonstrate a
five year housing land supply, as 111% of the 3,800 requirement can be accommodated on
existing sites with permission. However, this figure is based on the annual requirement of 760
dwellings per annum. Taking into account the rise to 1,123 new homes per annum; the sites
previously identified (up to 2013) represented only a 3.8 year housing land supply. Further, our
client is aware that the revised London Plan target is being utilised within further LBR policy
documents; however in light of the findings of the Redbridge Housing Need Study we would
question the ability of LBR to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and whether this truly
reflects an objectively assessment of housing need.
4.12 Notwithstanding the five year housing land supply, it is widely acknowledged by LBR that there is a
significant shortfall in the housing land supply during the 6-10 year period of the Plan. Our client,
Ford therefore supports LBR’s approach to identify an alternative major development site as part of
this POE consultation.
Green Belt Review:
4.13 Our client is aware that over 2,060 hectares of land within LBR is designated as ‘Green Belt’. This
covers almost 40% of the Borough, but only 0.37% of the wider Metropolitan Green Belt (as
reported in 2010).
4.14 Due to the acute shortage of housing land within the Borough, our client encourages LBR to
consider potential sources of supply which will assist with housing delivery with the national
planning policy framework of sustainable development. As such, Ford is supportive of LBR’s
decision to consider Green Belt land as a potential source of housing capacity as detailed within its
response to the FALP consultation in April 2014. In doing so, Ford encourage LBR to revert back,
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 13
and reconsider the sites previously found suitable for release from the Green Belt within the LBR
Green Belt Review (2010) as the sites were assessed as no longer meeting the national and local
planning policy requirements / key functions of the Green Belt. In particular this relates to Site
GB16 – land at King George and Goodmayes hospitals and surrounding Green Belt which includes
the land the existing Ford sports land located immediately west of the hospital sites.
4.15 Further comments are provided on the LBR Green Belt Review (2010) in response to POE
Question 4 below.
POE Question 2 – Development Option 1
What do you think about Option 1 – proceed with Oakfields?
4.16 Ford does not wish to comment in detail regarding the merits / disadvantages of proceeding with
major development at Oakfields. However, it is apparent from the consultation responses and
latest POE draft that this site is extremely controversial with members of the public and local
community and that LBR received significant objections to the consultation draft in January 2013.
When comparing Development Option 1 (Oakfields) with the development of land within Ford’s
ownership (south of Eastern Avenue), the key issue associated with Option 1 is the loss of
publically accessible and available sports and community facilities. Whilst there are sports facilities
located within the Ford site, it should be noted that these facilities remain within private ownership
and access is limited to a very small percentage of the LBR community. Ford has also identified a
trend of decline in users and demand for facilities of this type – further detail is provided in Section
5. As such, Ford does not believe that development at Oakfields (Option 1) is an appropriate
approach for LBR, and as such, Ford are not supportive of Development Option 1.
POE Question 3 – Development Option 2
What do you think about Option 2 – Find another site, increase the proposed development
at land in and around Goodmayes and King George hospitals and the Ford Sports Ground
in Seven Kings / Chadwell Heath.
4.17 Our client, Ford is supportive of ‘Option 2’ which seeks to find an alternative development option
than the Oakfields proposals as set out in the Preferred Options consultation in January 2013.
Please refer to Section 3 of this report which sets out a detailed response to POE Question 3 on
behalf of Ford.
POE Question 4 – Development Option 3
What do you think about Option 3 – Western Corridor – Woodford Broadway / Woodford,
South Woodford and Wanstead
4.18 Ford acknowledges that Option 3 seeks to allow for the intensification of development in town
centres and along transport corridors which are not currently subject to Area Action Plans or part of
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 14
the five Investment Areas. This option seeks to raise building heights and density outcomes within
the town centres and along major corridors such as the land running between Woodford Broadway
/ Woodford to South Woodford and Wanstead.
4.19 Whilst Ford does not wish to comment in detail on the merits / disadvantages of pursuing growth in
along this corridor, Ford do wish to highlight a number of constraints associated with this option.
Option 3 would be largely restricted by the lack of large development sites within this corridor which
would not assist with the delivery of other facilities and infrastructure that would be required to
support residential development. Further, as highlighted in the POE consultation document,
development of this nature is likely to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance
of neighbouring residential areas.
4.20 A concern with this option also relates to its ability to deliver housing which is consistent with the
Borough’s objectively assessed housing need which has identified demand for a variety of units
including family-sized dwellings and first time homes.
4.21 It would appear that ‘Option 2’ – land at the Ford sports ground and neighbouring hospitals would
be more appropriate and sustainable than Option 3 due to its ability to delivery housing which is
consistent with the objectively assessed need for the Borough. The wider land being considered at
Option 2 also provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the necessary supporting facilities and
infrastructure.
4.22 Accordingly, in response to Question 4, Ford do not support Option 3 - the growth of the Western
Corridor area between Woodford Broadway / Woodford, South Woodford and Wanstead. Ford
believes that Option 2 remains a more suitable option for residential development.
POE Question 5 – Development Option 4
What do you think about Option 4 – Develop Green Belt land?
4.23 In this instance, in order to achieve the growth objectives of the Borough Ford accepts the principle
of the release of Green Belt land for residential development. However, in this situation, Ford
believe that the release of a large Green Belt site such as the Ford’s sports ground and
neighbouring hospital land is a more appropriate and sustainable approach than piecemeal release
of Green Belt in smaller parcels of land across the Borough. Further, the Ford site has been
identified as appropriate for release from the Green Belt for development as it is no longer
considered to positively portray the key purposes of the Green Belt as identified in national and
local planning policy. As such, it would seem inappropriate to release alternative sites across the
Borough that may still serve some, if not all of the purposes of the Green Belt.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 15
4.24 The Ford Newbury Park sports ground therefore represents a discrete release of Green Belt land.
4.25 Please refer to our Green Belt response on behalf of Ford at paragraphs 4.13 – 4.15 and 5.8 –
5.14.
POE Question 6 – Preferred Option
Overall, which option do you think is best for the Borough?
4.26 Please refer to Section 6, of this report which provides a response to Question 6 of the POE
consultation document on behalf of our client, Ford.
POE Question 7 – Realistic Alternatives
Are there any other realistic alternatives that the Council should consider?
4.27 On behalf of our client, we believe that Option 2 is the most appropriate development and growth
location for LBR due to its ability to deliver a comprehensive response to population growth and
housing demand. Due to the justifications set out within this report, Ford believes that Option 1
(Oakfields) and Option 3 (the Western Corridor) should be dismissed as suitable and deliverable
growth areas for LBR. As such, we do not believe that there are any realistic alternatives within the
Borough to accommodate the housing growth identified within both the POE consultation
document, and also the Further Alterations to the London Plan.
POE Question 8 – Contact Details (Agent)
4.28 As detailed in the introduction, these representations have been prepared by Iceni Projects Limited
on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited and Ford Sports and Social Trust. Iceni Projects are
retained as Ford’s planning advisors regarding the land at Newbury Park Sports Ground. Contact
details for Iceni Projects are provided below:
Andrew Gale – Director Jayme Radford – Senior Planner Iceni Projects Limited Iceni Projects Limited Flitcroft House Flitcroft House 114-116 Charing Cross Road 114-116 Charing Cross Road London London WC2H 0JR WC2H 0JR 020 3435 4230 020 3657 5034 [email protected][email protected]
POE Question 9 – Contact Details (Land Owner)
4.29 The freehold of the Site is owned by the Trustees of the Ford Sports and Social Trust, Ford Motor
Company Limited holds a leasehold interest in the Site – the relevant contact details are provided
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 16
below, however we would request that all correspondence regarding the Local Plan is sent c/o
Iceni Projects Limited.
Birgit Kirby – Real Estate Manager Ford Land
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 17
5. PROMOTION OF LAND AT FORD SPORTS GROUND
Response to POE Question 3
What do you think about Option 2 – Find another site – increase the proposed development
at land in and around Goodmayes and King George hospitals and the Ford Sports Ground
in Seven Kings / Chadwell Heath?
5.1 The following section provides a detailed response on behalf of Ford to Question 3 of the POE
consultation document which seeks the views of stakeholders on the proposal to increase
development at land in and around Goodmayes and King George hospitals and the Ford Sports
Ground in Seven Kings / Chadwell Heath.
5.2 Ford is supportive of this approach and encourages LBR to consider this as its preferred approach
when progressing the Local Plan to Submission stage. Ford can confirm that there is a growing
trend which identifies the demand for the sports facilities at the Ford site declining – as such, Ford
supports the Site as a future development site within the LBR Local Plan. Due to trends in usage
at the site, Ford believes that the site could be available for development during the 6-10 year
period or beyond of the LBR Local Plan.
5.3 Ford acknowledge that the Ford Sports Ground is being considered as part of a wider strategic
development allocation which includes the following land:
King George Hospital (Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals Trust);
Goodmayes Hospital (North East London Foundation Trust);
Ford Sports Ground (Ford Motor Company);
Seven Kings Park (Vision Redbridge Culture and Leisure); and,
Surrounding Green Belt Land (LBR).
5.4 Whilst Ford are supportive of a strategic development allocation across the land identified above,
Ford wish to also demonstrate to LBR that the land at the Ford Sports Ground could also be
developed in isolation of the other sites for residential development should complications arise
associated with land ownership or delivery. Therefore in response to Question 3, on behalf of Ford
we provide response to two options:
Option A – Development at the Ford Sports Ground;
Option B – Development at the King George and Goodmayes Hospital sites, Ford Sports
Ground and surrounding Green Belt land.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 18
5.5 Further details are provided below.
Housing Need
5.6 Ford are supportive of Option 2 as residential development of the land identified within this option
would assist greatly in the delivery of LBR’s housing targets during the Plan period.
5.7 However, the Ford land in isolation (Option A) could also deliver a significant number of new
residential dwellings. As detailed earlier within this report, the 2008 SHLAA identified the land as
having capacity to deliver c.1,030 residential units. Whilst this represents a relatively high density,
(one which Ford or a developer may consider to be too high), delivery of a quantum such as this
would represent delivery of almost one year of LBR’s identified housing need / targets.
Green Belt Functions
5.8 On behalf of our client, we have conducted a review of the LBR ‘Green Belt Review’ which was
published in 2010. In response to LBR’s requirement to identify additional land for housing
delivery, the Green Belt Review sought to identify land that no longer met the criteria of the Green
Belt which may be suitable for residential development and supporting infrastructure. The Green
Belt Review also sought to identify other land which may still make a contribution to the Green Belt,
but may warrant consideration for residential development under very special circumstances in the
interest of achieving a balanced and sustainable development.
5.9 In total, 16 parcels of land were considered, only four sites were considered appropriate for partial
release from the Green Belt for development, whilst one site was considered appropriate for full
release – this site was the land at King George and Goodmayes Hospitals and surrounding Green
Belt land (Option B). This evidence base document considered the site appropriate for release
from the Green Belt for the following reasons:
The site is now largely urban in nature with considerable development since the previous
Green Belt study;
Extensions have occurred to both the King George and Goodmayes hospitals;
The land is mainly surrounded by urban development;
The existing A12 (Eastern Avenue) functions as a major visual and physical barrier which
distinguishes this parcel of land from the wider Green Belt; and,
The existing open space and playing fields have attributes of urban open space rather than the
countryside.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 19
5.10 Whilst the Green Belt Review found the site appropriate for release from the Green Belt, we believe
it is important to also consider this within the context of the National Planning Policy Framework
(‘NPPF’) which was adopted in 2012 - after the Green Belt Review was prepared and published.
5.11 Section 9 of the NPPF sets out the national policy for protecting Green Belt land. More specifically,
paragraph 80 sets out the five key purposes of the Green Belt which includes:
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and,
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land.
5.12 When considering the points highlighted above, it is apparent that the site no longer meets any of
the objectives of the Green Belt. As detailed within the Green Belt Assessment Stage 4 (‘Possible
Alternative Uses’) the site adjoins neighbouring residential area on all of its boundaries and is
central to a number of transport links.
5.13 Further, paragraph 84 of the NPPF states that in drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries,
local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of
development. In doing so, the NPPF highlights that they should consider the consequences for
sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt
boundary, towards town and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the
outer Green Belt boundary.
5.14 As documented within the Green Belt Review, the land within Option B represents a prominent
inward extension of the wider Green Belt. As the site is the only land within the entire boundary
that was considered appropriate for release from the Green Belt, Ford encourages LBR to promote
this as the preferred strategic development allocation for the Local Plan.
Existing Use of Sports Fields / Facilities
Current Operations
5.15 This section details the current provision of sports and social facilities at the Site and provides high-
level data on current usage and recent trends. The purpose of this section is to assist LBR in
determining that the development of the Site would not result in an unacceptable loss of sports
facilities in the borough.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 20
Details about current provision at the site:
5.16 The Newbury Park site has outdoor facilities for football, cricket, hockey and lawn bowls; and
indoor facilities for squash and badminton. The Club has changing, shower and sauna facilities.
There is also a bar and function hall for social events including ballroom dancing.
Details about existing patronage:
5.17 The site is operated by The Ford Sports and Social Club (Essex) (The Club); this body operates
two sites across the East London/South Essex area – Newbury Park and Gardiners Lane South,
Basildon. The sites provide a sports and recreational facility principally for Ford employees based
at operational sites at: Dagenham; Warley and Dunton. Restructuring of the Ford business over
the last decade has led to a reduction in the number of operational sites across the East
London/South Essex region, this has had a consequent impact on the demand for sports and social
facilities (refer to Appendix A3 for a graphic of the current provision of operational sites and sports
and social facilities across the region).
5.18 The active membership of the Club across both the Newbury Park and Basildon sites is currently
less than 10% of the total membership (active members comprising separate groups who play
seasonal summer and winter sports).
5.19 The Club currently has a total of approx. 10,700 members across both sites, this comprises approx.
c.7,000 Ford pensioner members, c.2,700 employee members and c.500 associate members, in
addition to approx. 500 members from formerly affiliated companies. All members have access to
both the Newbury Park and Basildon sites. Qualification as a Member comprises a current Ford
employee, former employee or retiree; or an associate members (friends of employees).
5.20 Since 2004, and following a number of operational changes in the region, membership of The Club
has decreased, there has been a circa.55% reduction in membership over the last ten years.
5.21 Following further restructuring actions in 2009 (the Visteon manufacturing site closed) and in 2013
(the Dagenham Stamping & Tooling Plant closed), Club (employee) membership has more than
halved to c.2,700.
5.22 Changing lifestyles and attitudes towards traditional sports and social clubs, together with the
reduction in employee numbers, has resulted in fewer members using the facilities at Newbury
Park. Similarly employee preferences have moved away from participating in traditional outdoor
field sports (football and cricket) and this has resulted in fewer employee members playing football
and cricket at Newbury Park.
5.23 The Club has an associate membership programme, which allows members of the public to have
limited membership rights including participating in sport and social activities. There are currently
around 250 associate members at Newbury Park.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 21
5.24 Analysis presented within the Site Access Appraisal prepared by Iceni Projects (Transport)
demonstrates that the vast majority of active Members are located to the eastern area of the East
London/South Essex region. On the basis of current and anticipated future usage Ford need to
assess whether both facilities can be maintained in their current form, as such Ford will consider
opportunities which best meet the needs of its employees.
5.25 There is some use of the Site by external teams and groups, this includes Romford Football Club
who’s reserve team use the Newbury ground for training once a week during football season and
for pre-season training, however that club are currently in the process of establishing a new ground
in Romford (Westlands Playing Fields). There are also several Club section teams (including the
Ford Sunday League teams) that use the Sports ground.
5.26 The drainage of the existing sports fields is problematic – for example in the 2013/14 football
season 11 weekends were lost, which was due in part to waterlogged pitches making them
unplayable. It is estimated that on average around 4 weekends per football season are lost due to
pitches being unplayable / conditions are such that matches are likely to cause damage to the
playing surface.
What is the alternative provision in the local area?
5.27 Iceni have conducted a high-level review of existing sport and leisure provision within the local
area. A plan has been prepared and included at Appendix A4 which identifies the location of
existing provision in LBR and the type of facilities offered at each site ranging from football pitches
to tennis courts and athletics tracks. Appendix A4 has been prepared utilising sports and leisure
data available via LBR’s public website.
5.28 The largest existing sports facility in the immediate area is the Oakfield Sports Field (no. 10) and
the Redbridge Sports and Leisure Centre (no. 4). The site is located approximately 3 miles north of
Ford and comprises of cricket and football pitches at Oakfield Sports Field and football pitches,
training pitches, badminton courts, athletics facilities and table tennis at the Redbridge Sports and
Leisure Centre.
5.29 Other facilities within the immediate proximity of the Ford site include Barley Lane recreation
ground (training pitches, tennis courts and bowls green) which is located approximately 1 miles
south of the Ford site, and the Ilford and District indoor bowls club which is located less than a mile
north-west of the site.
5.30 On initial review, Iceni have identified 21 existing sports and leisure facilities across LBR which
offer provision for a range of sports – all of which area identified at the plan at Appendix A4.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 22
Table 5.1 Existing Sports and Leisure Provision in LBR
Site No Site Name Approx. distance from
the Ford site (miles)
1 Elmbridge Sports and Social Club 6.0
2 Whitbread Sports Ground 5.0
3 Wanstead Leisure Centre 4.0
4 Redbridge Sports and Leisure Centre 3.0
5 Barley Lane Recreation Ground 1.0
6 Clayhall Park, Longbridge Gardens 3.0
7 Valentines Park 2.5
8 Hainault Recreation Ground 3.5
9 Ilford and District Indoor Bowls Club 0.75
10 Oakfield Sports Field 3.0
11 Barkingside Recreation Ground 1.5
12 Wanstead and Snaresbrook Cricket Club 4.0
13 The Jack Carter Centre 2.5
14 Blake Hall Sports Club 4.0
15 Goodmayes Park & Recreation Ground 2.0
16 Seven Kings Park 0.5
17 The Woodford Wells Club 5.5
18 South Park 1.5
19 Elmhurst Gardens 4.0
20 Nutter Lane Sports Ground 3.0
21 Bradwell Close Sports Ground 6.0
Development Opportunity
Site Information
5.31 As discussed within this report, it is apparent that LBR require significant land to deliver much
needed residential development within the Borough. Ford supports the identification of its land at
the Newbury Park sports ground as an appropriate location for future major residential
development.
5.32 Whilst the POE consultation document considers the wider, comprehensive development of Ford’s
Newbury Park sports ground and the neighbouring Goodmayes and King George hospital sites –
Ford believe that its site should also be considered as an appropriate site in in its own right to
deliver residential development. Sports and leisure facilities could be retained / relocated to the
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 23
east of the site along the Seven Kings Water which would ensure that the remainder of the site
would be available for residential development.
5.33 The following sets out some planning and environmental considerations for the Ford site.
Site Considerations
Flood Risk:
5.34 Environ have been commissioned by Ford to prepare an initial Flood Risk Appraisal for the land
within its ownership. The report highlights that the majority of the Site is located within Flood Zone
1 which is assessed as having a low probability of flooding. There is however a small strip of land
which runs adjacent to the Seven Kings Water which is located in Flood Zone 3 which is assessed
as having a high probability of flooding.
5.35 On review of the historic flooding records for the local area, there are no records of site specific
flooding on this land.
5.36 The initial assessment identifies the potential presence of a minor aquifer somewhere within this
area. Whilst this is not an automatic indicator of groundwater flood risks, it suggests that further
work should be conducted as part of a site specific Flood Risk Assessment, should development
be progressed on the site. Environ have advised that even if a minor aquifer is identified in this
location, that this would not preclude residential development on the site.
5.37 The Site is located on greenfield land, and as such any surface water runoff from the Site would be
expected to drain, unmitigated into the Seven Kings Water. Environ have advised that the NPPF
requires that surface water runoff from a site is managed such that betterment is offered – i.e.
discharges should be reduced below that from the existing Site after consideration of potential
climate changes. It would therefore be necessary for any redevelopment plans for the Site to allow
for surface water drainage measures such that discharge is reduced to a greenfield rate using
sustainable urban drainage measures (SUDS).
5.38 In summary, the initial Flood Risk assessment states that given the majority of the Site is located in
Flood Zone 1, fluvial flood risks should not be a constraint to residential development across the
majority of the site. Further, access and egress routes to / from a future development would also
need to be located within Flood Zone 1. A copy of this initial assessment is included with this
submission (S2).
Highways & Transport:
5.39 Iceni Projects Limited (Transport) has been commissioned by Ford to prepare an initial Transport
Accessibility Appraisal (S1) for the land within its ownership and the suitability of the Site for
residential use. The report highlights that the Site is located within a sustainable location with good
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 24
footway and cycle links, and is in close proximity to a high number of frequent bus and rail services,
which supply good area coverage. These are within a reasonable walking and/or cycling distance
of the site. As such, the Site provides opportunities to use modes other than the car and will
provide all users of the site with a good level of access to all alternative modes of travel.
5.40 The assessment highlights that the Ford Site benefits from two vehicular access points from
Aldborough Road South, with the main access to the south west and an egress only to the north
west of the Site – both of which are under the ownership of Ford.
5.41 The report highlights that whilst the main access width is sufficient to accommodate the ad hoc
trips associated with the existing use of the Site, it would not be sufficient to accommodate two-way
working which would be required for residential development of the scale the Site could
accommodate. However, the assessment advises that there is sufficient capacity to amend the
existing main access to Aldborough Road and adjacent verges to provide a 5.5m access road with
a 2m footway on the southern side of the Site which could facilitate a development of up to 1,000
dwellings. As such, the access is considered appropriate for residential development of this size
and, if necessary the road could be widened further within the site. The existing egress could be
retained as a pedestrian/cycle access and emergency access route as this is a more direct route to
public transport services to the north west compared with the main site access.
5.42 With regards to car parking, the assessment highlights that up to 2,000 car parking spaces may be
required on site to accommodate the quantum of development proposed. However, it is advised
that 1,500 spaces (1.5 per unit) may be acceptable, especially as the 2011 Census Car or Van
availability data indicates that around 1,059 cars may be owned by future residents. The method of
travel to work data also supports lower car provision with circa 50% of existing local residents
travelling to work by public transport.
5.43 In summary, the Transport Accessibility Appraisal concludes that there are no insurmountable
issues that would preclude providing a suitable access to the site for future residential
development.
Site Capacity
5.44 Historical documents prepared by LBR include a number of indicative figures regarding the
quantum of development which is considered appropriate for the Ford site (Option A). For
example, the 2008 SHLAA considered the site appropriate for 1,030 dwellings.
5.45 The capacity of the site is largely dependent on the extent of land that will be developed for
residential use, and the areas retained for access, amenity space and landscaping. However, at
this stage we consider a density range of 30 – 65 dwellings per hectare appropriate for the Site.
We envisage that the site would be developed for predominately housing (2-3 storeys) with limited
provision of low-rise (c. 3 storey) apartment blocks. This is of course subject to market demand
and further Masterplanning activities.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 25
5.46 We envisage that the area of the site located within Flood Zone 3 will be retained as amenity space
/ sports provision and could be enhanced to provide an ecological corridor within the site.
London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan Preferred Options Extension: Alternative Development Strategies Consultation (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 26
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 These written representations have been prepared by Iceni Projects Limited (‘Iceni’) on behalf of
our client Ford Motor Company Limited and the Ford Sports and Social Trust (‘Ford’).
POE Question 6 – Preferred Option
Overall, which option do you think is best for the Borough?
6.2 Due to the justifications set out within this response, Ford believe that the most suitable and
deliverable option for the Borough is ‘Option 2 – Increase the proposed development at land in and
around Goodmayes and King George hospitals and the Ford Sports Ground in Seven Kings /
Chadwell Heath’.
6.3 Ford believe that this option provides the most comprehensive response to the planning challenges
currently facing the Borough relating to rapid population growth, housing demand and the lack of
large, and suitable development sites.
6.4 Please refer to Section 2 of these representations for a full summary.
APPENDIX A1 – SITE LOCATION PLAN
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
94
1 to
674
Pri
ory
Cou
r t
1 to 6
22 to 3
6
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSE
7 t
o 2
1
64
15 to
18
49 to 52
88
90
94a
7 t
o 2
1
1 to 6
22
to 3
3
37 to 40
70
5 to 1
4
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENS
4
57
6
The Shrubberies
12
2
3
222
51
5
Spea
rpoi n
t G
ard
ens
23
8
OAK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
E
OAK
S L
AN
E
227
El Sub Sta
233
13 to
18
203
9
217
225
212
213
7
5
14
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
1
4
El Sub Sta
11
19 to
24
25 to 3
0
20
25
20
15
2835
17
27
45
41
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
51
30
211
57
4 4
209
7
27.1m
14
6
204
192
202
1
2
3
210
2
84
8
10
1
2
9
74
12
12
1
9
16
19
2
104
1
106
49
96
62
35
26.8m
1
2
10
37
4
180
182
170
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
65
2
59
61
40
71
160
69
118
47
1
86
Sports
Aldborough Hatch Chapel
Ordinary Watercourses
20.1m
LB
19.8m
27.7m Culverted Shelter
WatercoursesAldborough House Farm
20.4m
27.4m
Site Location27.1m
27.4m
21.0m
Shelter Blue Ribbon27.4m Network
21.9m
Flooding History26.8m
(Emergency Services)27.1m
King George Hospital
El Sub Sta Flood Outline 1974 (EA)
22.6m
27
31 32TCB
27.1m
Community Care
Advice Centre Flood Outline 1987(EA)
25.3m
23.5m
Flood Outline 1993 (EA)
Shelter
TankTanks
Tank
LBTanks Tanks
Water Tower
Chy Flood Outline 2000(EA)
23.2m
GoodmayesHospital
Flood Outline22.9m
Meadow Court Historical (EA)
Bowling Green
22.8m
Surface WaterFlooding
22.9m
16.7m Flooded16.4m
Properties 2000El
Subway GroundSub Sta
22.5m FBAmbulance 19.5mNo Window Station
LB
ClubShelter
Club 20.4m
21.6m
21.9mClub
21.9m
For definitions of items includedPW
Hall21.3m in the key, refer to the glossary
Pavilion 22.6m
1 to 921.6m
Acorn
Court El Sub StaESSs
21.3m
22.6m21.6m
Sports Ground
Chapters House
20.7m
20.1m
Suffolk CourtLouisa
House
Foot Bridge21.3m
Hall
Catholic
Church of St Teresa ESS
Tennis Courts
ElPresbytery
Sub Tennis Court
StaAthenaeum
Lawn Tennis
18.8mNewbury Park Club
District Synagogue
Lorenzo LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGEPlaying FieldHouse
21.0m19.5m
LB
Shelter
18.8m Project: STRATEGIC FLOOD 23a
23b
RISK ASSESSMENT
Play Area Title:FLOODING HISTORY
Allotment Gardens Tuscany18.0m
HouseShelter
18.6m
PCsTennis
Courts
18.5m
Seven Kings Park
1:4000Scale:
Dec 2014Date:18.8m
18.5m
"The Ordnance Survey mapping data included within this publication is This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission provided by London Borough of Redbridge under licence from the Ordnance Map 004 -of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Survey in order to fulfill its public function to act as a planning authority. Persons
APPENDIX A3 – FORD CURRENT PROVISION OF OPERATIONAL SITES AND SPORTS
& SOCIAL FACILITIES ACROSS THE REGION
3
2
1
2
1
Existing Sports & Social Clubs Operational Ford Sites
1
2
1
2
3
Newbury Park
Gardiners Lane, Basildon
Dagenham Diesel Centre
Central Offices, Warley
Dunton Technical Centre
FORD MOTOR COMPANY – EAST LONDON/SOUTH ESSEX SITES AND SPORTS & SOCIAL CLUBS (Dec 2014)
APPENDIX A4 – EXISTING SPORTS AND LEISURE FACILITIES WITHIN THE LONDON
BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(Data Source: LB Redbridge Website December 2014)
EXISTING SPORTS AND LEISURE FACILITIES WITHIN THE LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE
MEMORANDUM
To: Andrew Gale
Cc: Jayme Radford, Lucy Howes
From: Christopher Day on behalf of Simon Gaskell
Date: 19th December 2014
File Ref MUK14-21034 Issue 2
Subject Initial Flood Risk Appraisal – Ford Cars Land at Newbury Park
Background
The eastern boundary of the Site (land owned by Ford Motor Company) is formed by Seven Kings Water which flows in a general southerly direction. The channel of Seven Kings Water flows through an area of scrub/dense vegetation beyond the extent of the sports fields. It is assumed that this area, on the right bank of Seven Kings Water remains within the Site boundary. Seven Kings Water discharges into Loxford Water approximately 3.2 km south-west and ultimately into the tidal River Roding approximately 4.3 km south-west of the Site.
Flood Zone Designation
The EA online Flood Map for Planning shows the majority of the Site to be located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) which represents land assessed as having less than a 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) annual probability of flooding from rivers or the sea.
There is a strip of land running adjacent to the Seven Kings Water which is located in Flood Zone 3 (high probability). It appears that this area corresponds approximately with the area of scrub/dense vegetation. However, the resolution of the Flood Map for Planning is not sufficient to determine if Flood Zone 3 extends beyond this and onto the sports fields. Flood Zone 3 represents land assessed as having greater than a 1 in 100 (1%) annual probability of flooding from rivers or greater than a 1 in 200 (0.5%) annual probability of flooding from the sea. Given the distance between the Site and tidal waters, flooding form the sea is unlikely.
Redbridge Council has provided detailed mapping from the London Borough of Redbridge Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for the Site. This confirms the extent of Flood Zones 2 and 3 as shown in Annex A. The extent of Flood Zone 3b (the functional floodplain) is also shown. Only land immediately adjacent to Seven Kings Water is shown to be within Flood Zone 3b. Flood Zone 3b is the ‘Functional Floodplain’ and zone comprises land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood.
The EA also publishes a Flood Map for Rivers and the Sea which is described by the EA as being an improvement on the Flood Map for Planning as it takes into account the presence of flood defences or structures in the floodplain. This mapping describes flood risk according to four categories:
• Very Low means that each year, this area has a chance of flooding of less than 1 in 1000 (0.1%);
• Low means that each year, this area has a chance of flooding of between 1 in 1000 (0.1%) and 1 in 100 (1%);
ENVIRON UK Ltd, Box House, Box, Wiltshire SN13 8AA, UK Tel: +44 1225 748420
www.environcorp.com
Registered in England Company No: 2331163 Registered Office: Artillery House, 11-19 Artillery Row, London SW1P 1RT
• Medium means that each year, this area has a chance of flooding of between 1 in 100 (1%) and 1 in 30 (3.3%); and
• High means that each year, this area has a chance of flooding of greater than 1 in 30 (3.3%).
The areas of the Site shown to be located in Flood Zone 1 are located in an area assessed as having a Very Low chance of flooding in any year. The areas within Flood Zones 2 and 3 are predominantly located within land assessed as having a Medium risk of flooding while there are small areas immediately adjacent to Seven Kings Water located in an area assessed as having a High chance of flooding.
Planning Context
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out which land uses would be appropriate within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 as shown below.
• Essential transport infrastructure (including mass evacuation routes) which has to cross the area at risk.
• Essential utility infrastructure which has to be located in a flood risk area for operational reasons, including electricity generating power stations and grid and primary substations; and water treatment works that need to remain operational in times of flood.
• Wind turbines.
Highly Vulnerable • Police stations, ambulance stations and fire stations and command centres and telecommunications installations required to be operational during flooding.
• Emergency dispersal points. • Basement dwellings. • Caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent
residential use. • Installations requiring hazardous substances consent. (Where there is a
demonstrable need to locate such installations for bulk storage of materials with port or other similar facilities, or such installations with energy infrastructure or carbon capture and storage installations, that require coastal or water-side locations, or need to be located in other high flood risk areas, in these instances the facilities should be classified as “essential infrastructure”).
More Vulnerable • Hospitals. • Residential institutions such as residential care homes, children’s homes,
social services homes, prisons and hostels. • Buildings used for dwelling houses, student halls of residence, drinking
establishments, nightclubs and hotels. • Non–residential uses for health services, nurseries and educational
establishments. • Landfill and sites used for waste management facilities for hazardous
waste. • Sites used for holiday or short-let caravans and camping, subject to a
specific warning and evacuation plan.
Less Vulnerable • Police, ambulance and fire stations which are not required to be operational during flooding.
• Buildings used for shops, financial, professional and other services, restaurants and cafes, hot food takeaways, offices, general industry, storage and distribution, non–residential institutions not included in “more vulnerable”, and assembly and leisure.
• Land and buildings used for agriculture and forestry. • Waste treatment (except landfill and hazardous waste facilities). • Minerals working and processing (except for sand and gravel working). • Water treatment works which do not need to remain operational during
times of flood. • Sewage treatment works (if adequate measures to control pollution and
manage sewage during flooding events are in place).
Water-compatible Development
• Flood control infrastructure. • Water transmission infrastructure and pumping stations. • Sewage transmission infrastructure and pumping stations. • Sand and gravel working. • Docks, marinas and wharves. • Navigation facilities. • Ministry of Defence defence installations. • Ship building, repairing and dismantling, dockside fish processing and
refrigeration and compatible activities requiring a waterside location. • Water-based recreation (excluding sleeping accommodation). • Lifeguard and coastguard stations. • Amenity open space, nature conservation and biodiversity, outdoor sports
and recreation and essential facilities such as changing rooms. • Essential ancillary sleeping or residential accommodation for staff required
by uses in this category, subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan.
Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone Compatibility2
Flood risk vulnerability classification
Essential infrastructure
Water compatible
Highly vulnerable
More vulnerable
Les vulnerable
Floo
d Zo
ne
Zone 1
Zone 2 Exception Test required
Zone 3a Exception Test required
Exception Test required
Zone 3b functional floodplain
Exception Test required
London Rivers Action Plan
The London Borough of Redbridge Level 1 and Level 2 SFRA, produced in May 2009, sets out that the London Rivers Action Plan (LRAP), produced by the EA in EA 2009, offers guidance to those seeking to restore a river in (North) London in line with The London Plan and Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy. The LRAP advises that proposed works on Seven Kings Water are one of 100 projects at which stretches of river can be brought “back to life” through improving river channel (riparian) habitats, by removing or modifying flood defence structures where safe to do so, or by reclaiming 'lost' rivers currently buried. Specifically, the LRAP identifies that Seven Kings Water can be realigned with the creation of meanders, natural banks and profiled to improve and enhance ecological biodiversity interest. One of the areas identified as being a focus for this is the Seven Kings Park. However, immediately adjacent to the Site, the watercourse appears to flow through a naturalised channel. It is not, therefore, clear if works would be recommended to this reach of the watercourse.
Historic Flooding
The SFRA mapping provided by Redbridge Council shows that the Site was not affected by flooding during historic events in 1974, 1987, 1993 and 2000. Version 2 of the London Borough of Redbridge Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PRFA), produced in April 2011 states that, during the October 2000 flood event, as well as flooding of the River Roding, “there was further flooding along Chester Road and Spencer Road in Seven Kings due to problems with the Seven Kings Water Way”. Chester Road is located approximately 530m south of the Site and Spencer Road 880m south. No specific reference is made to flooding in Seven Kings Park or at the Site. However, it is likely that only records of property flooding were made.
2 Table 3 of the NPPF Technical Guide
Groundwater Flooding
The south of the Site is shown in the mapping provided by Redbridge Council to be above a Minor Aquifer. Whilst this is not an automatic indicator of groundwater flood risks, it suggests that potential for such risks to exist should be examined as part of a detailed Flood Risk Assessment. The British Geological Society (BGS) hold records of boreholes on land to the south of the Site. A borehole immediately south shows the following stratigraphy.
Table 3: Geological Stratigraphy for Borehole Immediately South
Base Depth (metres below ground level) Description
0.25m Topsoil
0.6m Gravel and silty sand
2.6m Gravel with fine sand and occasional clay lenses
3.1m Silty clay with lenses of coarse sand and gravel
Borehole base at 4.0m Silty clay
The borehole record suggested that the borehole was initially dry when dug. However, the record is unclear as to whether groundwater had subsequently in-filled the borehole as it collapsed to a depth of 2.2m.
If basement areas were to be proposed, it is likely that groundwater monitoring would be required to determine potential risks.
Surface Water Management
The Site is currently greenfield and any surface water runoff from the Site would be expected to drain, unmitigated into the Seven Kings Water.
The NPPF requires that surface water runoff from a site is to be managed such that betterment is offered, i.e. discharges should be reduced below that from the existing Site after consideration of potential climate changes. It would, therefore, be necessary for any redevelopment plans for the Site to allow for surface water drainage measures such that discharge is reduced to a greenfield rate using Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) measures as set out in the hierarchy below.
The Mayor’s Water Strategy also confirms that the Preferred Standard would be for a proposed development to achieve a reduction of surface water discharge to an equivalent greenfield rate.
The British Geological Society (BGS) online Geology of Britain Viewer3 [insert reference] shows the Site to be underlain by superficial deposits of River Terrace Deposits which consist of undifferentiated Sand and Gravel. Subject to further Site Investigation and Infiltration Testing, this suggests that infiltration based drainage should be achievable if it can be demonstrated that preferred options set out above prove not to be feasible. Therefore, it should be feasible to produce a SUDS led surface water drainage strategy for the Site in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the Mayor’s Water Strategy, assuming this is given due consideration at early stages of development design.
Summary
It is recommended that consultations be undertaken with the EA to obtain further site-specific data such that flood risks can be defined with more clarity. If the EA has not undertaken detailed hydraulic modelling of Seven Kings Water this would suggest that the extents of Flood Zones 2 and 3 would have been determined using national scale generalised modelling which is undertaken at a broad resolution and not suitable for site-specific assessment. If this is the case, there may be a need to complete a detailed site-specific flood modelling exercise in order to derive potential flood extents, depths and velocities and to define design standards such as required finished floor levels. Such modelling would ensure that the developable area could be maximised.
Given that the majority of the Site is located in Flood Zone 1, fluvial flood risks should not be a constraint to development across the majority of the Site. Access and egress routes to/from a Proposed Development would also be located in Flood Zone 1.
Annex A: Site Specific SFRA Mapping Provided by the London Borough of Redbridge
No Window
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
LANGHAM DRIVE
26
15
Def
FF
Def
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
102
94
1 t
o 6
ESS
CR
Def
Ward BdyCF
CF
Def
24
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
LE
XD
EN
DR
IVE
14
2
74
De
f
FF
FW
FW
De
f
L ex d
o n C
ourt
14
1
2
Shelter
22
to 3
6
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSE
Tuscany
House
15 to
18
49 to 52
88
18.8m
90
94a
7 t
o 2
1
1 to 6
Lorenzo
22
to 3
3
House
37 to 40CF
De
f
CF
Allotment Gardens
18.8m
Playing Field
5 to 1
4
ESS
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
"The Ordnance Survey mapping data included within this publication is provided by London Borough of Redbridge under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to fulfill its public function to act as a planning authority. Personsviewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey copyrigth for advicewhere they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping data for their own use"
Map 002 -
Ford Sports Ground
For definitions of items includedin the key, refer to the glossary
No Window
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
94
1 to
674
Pri
ory
Cou
r t
Shelter
18.5m
1 to 6
22
to 3
6
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSE
7 t
o 2
1
Tuscany
House
64
15 to
18
49 to 52
88
18.8m
90
94
a
7 t
o 2
1
1 to 6
Lorenzo
22
to 3
3
House
37 to 40
70
Allotment Gardens
18.8m
18.8m
18.5m
Playing Field
5 to 1
4
ESS
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
"The Ordnance Survey mapping data included within this publication is provided by London Borough of Redbridge under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to fulfill its public function to act as a planning authority. Personsviewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey copyrigth for advicewhere they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping data for their own use"
Map 004 -
Ford Sports Ground
For definitions of items includedin the key, refer to the glossary
1:4000Scale:
No Window
Def
FF
Def
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
BAR
LEY
LAN
E
102
94
ESS
CR
1 to
6
1
74
De
f
FF
FW
FW
De
f
2
Pri
ory
Cou
r t
Shelter
18.5m
1 to 6
22
to 3
6
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSE
7 t
o 2
1
Tuscany
House
15 to
18
49 to 52
88
18.8m
90
94a
7 t
o 2
1
1 to 6
Lorenzo
22
to 3
3
House
37 to 40
70
CF
De
f
CF
Allotment Gardens
18.8m
18.8m
Playing Field
5 to 1
4
ESS
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
MEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSEMEDICI CLOSE
"The Ordnance Survey mapping data included within this publication is provided by London Borough of Redbridge under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to fulfill its public function to act as a planning authority. Personsviewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey Copyright for advicewhere they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping data for their own use"
Figure 006 -
Ford Sports Ground
For definitions of items includedin the key, refer to the glossary
DE
CE
MB
ER
2014
ICE
NI
PR
OJE
CT
S
LIM
ITE
D
ON
B
EH
ALF
O
F
FO
RD
MO
TO
R C
OM
PA
NY
LIM
ITE
D
Sit
e A
cc
es
s A
pp
rais
al
FO
RD
S
PO
RT
S
AN
D
SO
CIA
L
CL
UB
, A
LD
BO
RO
UG
H
RO
AD
SO
UT
H, N
EW
BU
RY
PA
RK
Iceni Projects Ltd
Flitcroft House 114-116 Charing Cross Rd, London WC2H 0JR
T 020 3640 8508 F 020 3435 4228 W iceniprojects.com
Site Access Appraisal
Ford Sports and Social Club, Aldborough Road South, Newbury Park Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of
Ford Motor Company Limited
December 2014
Site Access Appraisal (December 2014) | Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of Ford Motor Company Limited 2
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENSROY GARDENS
ROY GARDENS
4
57
6
The Shrubberies
12
2
3
222
51
5
Spea
rpoi n
t G
ard
ens
23
8
OAK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
EO
AK
S L
AN
E
OAK
S L
AN
E
227
El Sub Sta
233
13 to
18
203
9
217
225
212
213
7
5
14
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
BURYSIDE CLOSE
1
4
El Sub Sta
11
19 to
24
25 to 3
0
20
25
20
15
2835
17
27
45
41
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
RO
Y G
AR
DE
NS
51
30
211
57
4 4
209
7
27.1m
14
6
204
192
202
1
2
3
210
2
84
8
10
1
2
9
74
12
12
1
9
16
19
2
104
1
106
49
96
62
35
26.8m
1
2
10
37
4
180
182
170
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAYCHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
CHEVIOT WAY
65
2
59
61
40
71
160
69
118
47
1
86
Sports
Aldborough Hatch Chapel
Ordinary Watercourses
20.1m
LB
19.8m
27.7m Culverted Shelter
WatercoursesAldborough House Farm
20.4m
27.4m
Site Location27.1m
27.4m
21.0m
Shelter Blue Ribbon27.4m Network
21.9m
Flooding History26.8m
(Emergency Services)27.1m
King George Hospital
El Sub Sta Flood Outline 1974 (EA)
22.6m
27
31 32TCB
27.1m
Community Care
Advice Centre Flood Outline 1987(EA)
25.3m
23.5m
Flood Outline 1993 (EA)
Shelter
TankTanks
Tank
LBTanks Tanks
Water Tower
Chy Flood Outline 2000(EA)
23.2m
GoodmayesHospital
Flood Outline22.9m
Meadow Court Historical (EA)
Bowling Green
22.8m
Surface WaterFlooding
22.9m
16.7m Flooded16.4m
Properties 2000El
Subway GroundSub Sta
22.5m FBAmbulance 19.5mNo Window Station
LB
ClubShelter
Club 20.4m
21.6m
21.9mClub
21.9m
For definitions of items includedPW
Hall21.3m in the key, refer to the glossary
Pavilion 22.6m
1 to 921.6m
Acorn
Court El Sub StaESSs
21.3m
22.6m21.6m
Sports Ground
Chapters House
20.7m
20.1m
Suffolk CourtLouisa
House
Foot Bridge21.3m
Hall
Catholic
Church of St Teresa ESS
Tennis Courts
ElPresbytery
Sub Tennis Court
StaAthenaeum
Lawn Tennis
18.8mNewbury Park Club
District Synagogue
Lorenzo LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGEPlaying FieldHouse
21.0m19.5m
LB
Shelter
18.8m Project: STRATEGIC FLOOD 23a
23b
RISK ASSESSMENT
Play Area Title:FLOODING HISTORY
Allotment Gardens Tuscany18.0m
HouseShelter
18.6m
PCsTennis
Courts
18.5m
Seven Kings Park
1:4000Scale:
Dec 2014Date:18.8m
18.5m
"The Ordnance Survey mapping data included within this publication is This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission provided by London Borough of Redbridge under licence from the Ordnance Map 004 -of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Survey in order to fulfill its public function to act as a planning authority. Persons
FORD NEWBURY PARK SPORTS GROUND - REDLINE BOUNDARY (AS EXTRACTED FROM THE LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT)
A2. PTAL CALCULATIONS
PTAI Study Report File SummaryPTAI Run Parameters
PTAI Run 20141912054137Description 20141912054137Run by user PTAL web applicationDate and time 19/12/2014 05:41
Walk File Parameters
Walk File PLSQLTestDay of Week M-FTime Period AM PeakWalk Speed 4.8 kphBUS Walk Access Time (mins) 8BUS Reliability Factor 2.0LU LRT Walk Access Time (mins) 12LU LRT Reliability Factor 0.75NATIONAL_RAIL Walk Access Time (mins) 12NATIONAL_RAIL Reliability Factor 0.75
Coordinates: 545627, 188580
Mode Stop Route Distance(metres)
Frequency(vph) Weight
Walktime(mins)
SWT(mins)
TAT(mins) EDF AI
BUS EASTERN AVELEYSWOOD DR 66 218.44 5.0 1.0 2.73 8.0 10.73 2.8 2.8
EASTERN AVE
BUS EASTERN AVELEYSWOOD DR 296 218.44 3.0 0.5 2.73 12.0 14.73 2.04 1.02
BUS EASTERN AVELEYSWOOD DR 396 218.44 3.0 0.5 2.73 12.0 14.73 2.04 1.02
Route finderDay buses including 24-hour servicesBus route Towards Bus stops
25 Oxford Circus L, Q, V, Y 86 Romford F, P, PP, R, T Stratford L, Q, V, Y 123 Wood Green G, M, Q, W 128 Claybury Broadway H, M, Q, W, Z Romford K, PP, R, T 145 Dagenham K, R, T
Leytonstone G, M, Q, W, Z 147 Prince Regent L, Q, V, Y 150 Becontree Heath K, PP, R, T Chigwell Row H, M, Q, W, Z 167 Debden H, M, Q, W 169 Barking P, Q, V Clayhall B, F, PP, R, S 179 Chingford G, M, Q, W 296 Romford C, H
364 Dagenham East H, M, Q, W 366 Beckton K, R, T Redbridge G, M, Q, W, Z 396 King George Hospital C, H 462 Hainault H, M, Q, W EL1 Barking Riverside F, P EL2 Dagenham Dock F, P W19 Walthamstow L, Q, V, Y
Night buses Bus route Towards Bus stops
N86 Harold Hill F, P, PP, R, T Stratford L, Q, V, Y, Z
