Hall Lane Mini Golf Course – PowerPoint and links to Council Website

Last night (Monday 11th) the main hall at Cranham Community Centre was filled to capacity, with people also standing in the corridor outside, as the residents of Cranham and Upminster showed their strong feelings against the Council’s proposals to build houses and flats on Hall Lane Mini Golf Course.

For all those who came to the meeting and especially everyone who volunteered to help deliver thousands of leaflets to homes in Cranham and Upminster, a big thank you!

As promised at the meeting, attached is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that Cllr Gillian Ford gave to the meeting, highlighting reasons that you may wish to include in any objection letters or online submissions that you send. As was emphasised, more than one letter/submission can come from the same household, as long as they are individually written, and there is no lower age limit to sending an objection.

A link to the planning application, where you can view the documents and submit comments, is here.

A link to the Local Development Plan 2016-2031 is here.

Please send your comments and objections into the Planning Department by the 22nd March. The more they receive the more weight they have to give to those objections.

Thank you

Cllr Gillian Ford and Cllr John Tyler



  1. Hands off mini golf course for yet more homes there will be no green spaces left if this council has their way!!!

  2. How can Havering council justify cutting this young persons’ provision when there is so much serious youth crime in the borough?

    If this project goes ahead then Havering council will be directly contravening Government Orders October 2018 whereby parks and open spaces must be protected at all cost for the health and wellbeing of everykne and in particular young people.

    Havering Council should hang their heads in shame at this short sighted and selfish proposal. By cutting young people’s services they will be directly responible for the rise in youth crime in the borough and the devastation that it brings.

  3. I have made an objection to this planned development, which is appended below. Please feel free to use any of the material, but remember, if your objection looks like mine, it will be counted as only 1. And if in a family, try to object for each person, because numbers count!


    The area of land which is designated at present the Hall Lane Mini Golf Course (MGC) is admittedly under-utilised for people who wish to pay £3.00 to use the facilities when open. I propose to keep this land for sport and recreation, by creating a public gardens, 5 a side football pitch, children’s playground, and allotment gardens and re-designate it ‘The Clarence Barrett Memorial Gardens”. If this suggestion could not be used, then I would urge that the land be given over to Thames Chase Trust, well known in the area for providing areas of woodland and wildlife to flourish.

    The Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development plan adopted 2008 states in section DC-18 ‘The Council will seek the retention and enhancement of all (N.B.) public open space and recreation, sports and leisure facilities that are in private and public ownership’. This application goes against this policy. The site should have been more open in the past, as, if it was a park, it would be the only one in Cranham ward. Therefore, development of this site would be a loss of open space, and the loss of an existing amenity, which could be better utilised if my suggestions were carried out.

    In the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) 2015/16 S12 (Green Belt) states ‘ 50% of Havering area is designated as Green Belt’, and goes on ‘LDF objectives, seeking to limit urban sprawl (N.B.) , prioritise brownfield sites for development and preserving (N.B.) local environments and biodiversity. Thus, this application also goes against this policy.
    The AMR also relates to transport. In the application, measurements have been made relating to local bus services and traffic flow in Hall Lane. On the surface the figures seem to add reinforcement to the proposal to ‘sweeten’ it as it were. However, the traffic measurement taken in Hall Lane only looked at a week of traffic flow. What this does not take into account are other factors. These include extreme congestion when there are road works in Hall Lane, a vehicle blocking the road, or problems on the M25 motorway or the A127, when Hall lane is used as a rat run. I have witnessed vehicles waiting in a queue from Avon Road to Upminster town centre because of one of the above occurring. Cars leaving the development would find it very difficult to turn into Hall lane due to the amount of traffic on this road, especially at peak times. This obviously also adds to air pollution in the area.

    With regard to buses, the 347 route should not really be included, as there are only 3 buses a day each way. The 248 bus route is the main route in Hall Lane.From Moor Lane in Cranham towards Romford, Upminster Tithe Barn Museum is the 12th stop, so the bus is generally crowded by the time it reaches this stop, and the reverse is also the same in the evening peak, with huge queues at the station wishing to go to Cranham. Although the proposal has looked at the frequency of buses on this route, no study has been made of the number of people using it.

    The site, apart from having mostly grass land, has a large number of mature trees, which in turn are host to wildlife in the area, which will be lost if this development takes place. Has any study been carried out to ascertain if there are any protected species, such as slow worms, bats, etc.?

    This development will also put a strain on existing facilities. The AMR stated that ‘the average patient list per practise in 2015/16 was increased on the previous year. Since that time, there has been a lot of building activity in Cranham and Upminster wards, with the old Windmill Hall site being developed, the Mcarthy and Stone parkside development, a site neighbouring Sacred Heart school, new flats built in Deyncourt Gardens, amongst others.The Demographics section of the AMR also makes reference to an ageing population, higher longevity, and increase in the birth rate and a large inflow of children from other boroughs. Although this means that there ought to be more housing built, this should not be done at the expense of existing green space amenities, brown field sites would be much better to build on. Also, Havering has the highest rate of serious disabilities in London Boroughs, with an estimated 4.14% claiming disability allowance. Further housing will put a strain on resources in this area. In the proposal, 3 primary schools are mentioned, and one senior school. All of these have restrictions on new child intake, and this would be detrimental to families moving into the area.

    And lastly, the 3 roads surrounding the site would suffer a loss of amenity, as they would be overlooking new housing instead of a green space.

  4. The Pitch and Putt is a valuable green space and should be protected as such, either retained as pitch and putt, or football, netball or hockey pitch for children or adults. There are so few green spaces and once they are lost they are gone for ever. It is important for the health and fitness of the community.

  5. Having lived in Upminster all my life, and enjoyed many times spent at the pitch & putt as a child I am saddened to hear that this little gem is up for demolition to make way for yet more houses.
    This I feel is a step too far, especially when Upminster town and its infastructure is already full to capacity. Driving into and out of Upminster can take a long time due to the amount of cars now coming from out of the area to shop at the likes of M&S and Aldi. Hall lane is the main artery into Upminster and when there are traffic problems both on the M25 or A127 every thing is diverted onto Hall Lane and traffic is at a standstill for hours. This is very frustrating for Local people who can’t get to work on time.
    This proposed development would cause an unnecessary build up of more traffic and flood our local facilities.
    I strongly object to any such build and would rather see it used for community purposes.

  6. I have taken my children and their children to play on the mini golf. There are far to few open spaces, where it is safe
    to take children to play in this area, and we do not want to loose another one for the sake of few high priced houses.
    The council should consider the many that use the space. Rather than the few that would live they!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.