Saturday, April 08, 2017

Oakfield & The Local Development Plan
– The Inspector’s Timetable announced

On the day of the packed Save Oakfield Society public meeting (Thursday 6th April) at the Jack Carter Pavilion on the Oakfield site, the details of the Planning Inspector’s timetable were announced.

But first here’s a video of Wes Streeting (MP Ilford North) and Paul Canal (Leader of the Opposition at Redbridge Council) being interviewed at the meeting. (Jas Athwal look away now)


And the Ilford Recorder report that "West Ham legend Sir Trevor Brooking slams Redbridge Council’s ‘indefensible’ Oakfields plan at meeting"

The examination hearings will commence at 10.00am on Tuesday 6 June 2017 at the City Gates Conference Centre, 25-29 Clements Road, Ilford, IG1 1BH. Ten hearing days are scheduled across three weeks up to and including 20 July. Further overspill dates (if required) are scheduled up to week commencing 7 August. Oakfield will be taking up an entire day (if not more) on Wednesday 14 June after Green Belt issues are examined on day two (7 June).

All the details, plus supporting documents, are published over on Redbridge-i.

The key questions posed by the Inspector for Oakfield are as follows.

Barkingside – Policy 1E
  1. Is the strategic site at Oakfield, Forest Road (133) justified when compared to other reasonable alternatives, deliverable within the plan period having regard to any constraints and consistent with national policy? Is the detail about the site allocation adequate in respect of use, form, scale, access and quantum of development? Could it provide the number of dwellings anticipated having regard to the concept masterplan (LBR 2.78)?
  2. Does Oakfield meet any of the 5 purposes of the Green Belt in paragraph 80 of the NPPF?
  3. Has there been any material change in circumstances since the original designation of the Green Belt?
  4. Having regard to paragraph 74 of the NPPF would the loss of existing open space, sports and recreation buildings and land be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location?
  5. How can it be certain that replacement provision will be equivalent or better when the Feasibility Report for Oakfield Playing Pitch Re-provision (LBR 2.44.1) has not assessed the quality of pitch provision at Oakfield?
  6. How will the cost of re-provision and future maintenance be funded?
  7. In sporting and recreational terms is it justified to replace an existing, established facility with a new one? Has sufficient account been given to youth provision and the needs of adjoining Boroughs?
  8. How will the transition between existing and new facilities be controlled and managed?
  9. As Hainault Recreation Ground is within an area safeguarded for mineral extraction does it provide a suitable, long-term alternative to Oakfield?
  10. What will be the impact of the development at Oakfield in terms of traffic and air pollution?
  11. To what extent is Oakfield in a sustainable location?
  12. How would the development of Oakfield promote sustainable patterns of development?
  13. What implications do the designation of the site as an asset of community value and the existence of a covenant have on the allocation and delivery of Oakfield?

1 comment:

  1. Well done, Wes, Paul, Barkingside 21 and the ever committed Save Oakfield campaigners!

    ReplyDelete