The Strategic Planning Committee of Havering Council met on Thursday 26 March 2026 to discuss the redevelopment of the Angel Way multi-storey car park in Romford. The committee voted to approve the application by three votes to two, with one abstention, following extensive discussion.

Angel Way Multi-Storey Car Park Redevelopment

The Strategic Planning Committee considered the demolition of the Angel Way multi-storey car park and its redevelopment into a residential-led, mixed-use scheme. The proposal includes two residential blocks comprising 106 flats, alongside a flexible commercial or community unit. The decision was made by three votes to two, with one abstention.

Redevelopment of Angel Way Car Park

The meeting focused on the application to demolish the existing five-level multi-storey car park on Angel Way in Romford and redevelop the site. The proposal, put forward by Mercury Land Holdings Ltd, a wholly owned council company, includes the construction of two residential blocks providing 106 flats and a 93 square metre flexible commercial/community unit.

Ward Councillor Joshua Chapman called in the application, expressing concerns that the supplementary agenda, which addressed his points, was provided too late for proper consideration. He argued that the scheme failed to adequately address safety for women and girls, the potential for anti-social behaviour due to the site's enclosed nature, and the lack of affordable housing. Councillor Chapman requested the application be deferred to allow for a more thorough review of these issues, particularly the design of a proposed new walking route through the site.

Councillor David Taylor, also a ward councillor, echoed the call for deferral, stating the application was not ready for committee. He raised concerns about the scheme's alignment with the Romford Masterplan and Local Plan, particularly regarding the lack of affordable housing and the proposed unit mix. Councillor Taylor also highlighted potential issues with flood risk mitigation, the impact on the Romford Conservation Area, and the need for archaeological evaluation before determination.

The case officer, Andrew Thornley, presented the scheme, noting that the principle of development was supported by local and regional planning policy. He explained that the existing car park was underutilised and its loss was justified. The proposed buildings, reaching up to eight storeys, were considered broadly contextual with the emerging development in the area, despite the Romford Masterplan SPD suggesting four to six storeys as appropriate. The scheme was noted to be car-free, with four wheelchair accessible parking spaces provided.

During the debate, councillors raised numerous points. Councillor John Crowder questioned the height of the buildings, the provision of community use space, the mix of housing, and the necessity of electric vehicle charging points in a car-free development. Councillor Jane Keane expressed disappointment that the scheme did not deliver affordable housing, citing the council's own vehicle for development, Mercury Land Holdings Ltd, as being set up for such purposes. She also raised concerns about the height of the buildings, the impact on the heritage of St. Edward's Church, and the provision for waste management and disabled parking. Councillor Bryan Vincent also voiced concerns about the lack of detail on waste disposal, the impact on the Trinity Methodist Church, and the limited provision for disabled parking and mobility scooters.

Officers responded to these points, explaining that the flexible commercial unit could serve as community use, that rooftop gardens were often not feasible due to energy requirements, and that the number of cycle spaces met London Plan standards. They clarified that the four electric vehicle charging points were for the designated wheelchair accessible spaces. Regarding affordable housing, officers reiterated that viability assessments had shown the scheme could not viably deliver affordable housing, a position independently reviewed. They also defended the housing mix as appropriate for a town centre location.

Further discussions addressed concerns about lighting, with an agreement to tweak a condition to explicitly include public safety. The issue of waste management was discussed, with officers confirming that waste would be stored in the basement and collected via a specific system, with a condition to ensure details were finalised. The potential for bulky waste storage was also addressed, with a condition to require details of this.

Ultimately, the committee voted to approve the application by three votes to two, with one abstention. The decision was made subject to conditions as set out in the report and addendum. The committee also agreed to consider tweaking Condition 12 to explicitly include public safety and to allow for a more flexible approach to the delivery of cycle parking.

The meeting also included a brief mention of apologies for absence and the confirmation of previous minutes.