BROKENSHIRE ON MEGA CHURCH

Hornchurch and Rainham MP James Brokenshire has set out his thoughts on proposals for an 8,000 seat church on the Beam Reach 5 Business Park in Rainham.  His statement was issued as Robert Mellor - the Government appointed Planning Inspector - opened the public inquiry into the plans by the Kingsway International Christian Centre for what would be the biggest church in the country.  James Brokenshire has told the Inspector that he wishes to give evidence to the Inquiry which is expected to last for three weeks.  The full text of his statement is as follows:

1. In determining this appeal there is a need to assess the optimum use of Beam Reach in both planning terms - but also in connection with the regeneration of Rainham and this part of the Thames Gateway.  Notwithstanding current market conditions, there will be an increase in housing along the A1306 corridor heading out of Dagenham and into Rainham.  The Mardyke Estate will shortly be torn down and rebuilt as part of the urban renewal of this part of the London Borough of Havering.  Rainham Village itself will see investment in the area around the station to improve the transport inter-change.

2. With housing growth there will be a need for investment in social capital to ensure that we have a strong and cohesive community for the future reflecting an increasingly rich diversity of faiths and backgrounds.  This includes churches and other places of worship which can play an important role in binding people together and defining the culture, outlook and sense of society within a neighbourhood. But it will also mean a need for significant employment uses and new opportunities for people to work in this area – preferably with a broader range of jobs in an area which is currently low skill and low wage.  And it will also require significant investment in transport infrastructure as the Rainham area is poorly served by public transport at present.

3. The development of Beam Reach 5 is an essential part of this vision which is why the outcome of this appeal is so important.  Under the Havering Local Development Framework, Beam Reach 5 has been zoned for employment uses – principally skilled manufacturing employment – B1.  It has been described as a ‘zone of change’ and a catalyst to help kick-start investment and regeneration. Given the current economic situation there is an even more pressing need to create new jobs.  Therefore, a decision to deviate from the clear economic and strategic arguments and explicit planning designation for this land for employment uses would need to be justified by significant and tangible benefits for this area in support of regeneration.

4. I believe that the KICC proposal falls short of this requirement. The potential benefits of their proposal do not outweigh the loss of a significant part of this prime employment site.  Whilst KICC’s application does envisage the creation of some new employment, the quantum and nature of the jobs created in the context of the scale of the land utilised do not justify a departure from the clear planning policies for Beam Reach 5.
 
5. This weakness is compounded by significant concern that the travel plans for transferring people to and from the 8,000 seat auditorium will cause significant disruption for local residents and business users in this area. Whilst some members of KICC’s congregation do reside in Havering, the vast majority come from other parts of London – most notably around Hackney - and therefore travel plans are an essential element of the consideration of this application.  No upgrades or additions to public transport are envisaged by KICC, save for the specific dedicated bus transfer arrangements proposed for members of the congregation to coincide with services of worship but which have yet to be tested in practice. 

6. Against a backdrop of existing poor public transport,  it seems highly likely that there will be additional pressure from car borne users that could not be met by the proposed car parking arrangements.  Accordingly, I do not believe that KICC's proposals are robust or sustainable or that it will be possible to enforce any condition effectively in connection with the proposed travel plan offered by KICC.

7. More fundamentally, I do not believe that the London Development Agency has done enough to identify a suitable alternative site for KICC closer to their original base on the Olympics site in Stratford.  I am sympathetic to KICC’s situation and their aspirations but believe Beam Reach is simply the wrong site for them.  They would be better served by the LDA identifying land closer to Stratford.  Indeed, I was told by KICC that they would have been prepared to help build and finance one of the sites on the Olympic site with a view to taking the facility over after the Games for their worship, but that this idea was rejected by the relevant authorities.

8. KICC have argued that there is no planning designation under the Local Development Framework for places of worship.  As such, they will always be a ‘non conforming’ use in any area in which they seek to make an application.  Whilst I have some sympathy with KICC in this broader debate about the formulation of planning policy and the need for recognition of places of worship in this framework, I do not believe that this appeal is the right forum for that debate.  In the context of this appeal the assessment must be whether this particular proposal is appropriate for this particular area of land in the context of current planning law and policy.

9. KICC have also argued that reports that the London Development Agency may seek to relax its own aspirations for Beam Reach 5 as landowner - potentially allowing higher grade B8 warehousing and distribution uses on the site – offers greater support to their arguments.  The fundamental assessment must be whether the proposed use and development as contemplated by an application will seek to advance the broader policy objectives outlined in the Local Development Framework and other supporting planning policy and strategy documents. 

10. The primary objective for Beam Reach 5 is job creation and economic regeneration.  The KICC proposal - whilst it does have other merits - does not advance these essential aims.  The benefits for Rainham and the wider community are also unclear and uncertain.  The clear justification for deviation from the primary planning designation of Beam Reach 5 as a strategic employment site is not made out.  Accordingly, I would urge you as Inspector to recommend to the Secretary of State that this appeal be rejected.

Back to all posts