Public meeting re Hall Lane Mini Golf Course – Monday 7.15pm

Don’t forget that the Residents’ Association public meeting regarding Havering Council’s outline planning application to build 48 homes on Upminster’s Mini Golf Course in Hall Lane is at –

Cranham Community Centre, Marlborough Gardens

7.15pm Monday 11th March

Full application details can be found by clicking on the link P0248.19


  1. Below are some comments i have already submitted to the council objecting to this application ;

    My family and I strenuously object to this application. In the current obesity crisis, our young people require various activities to be available to encourage them to put down their screens [ipads etc]. Learners would not be encouraged onto local 18 hole full courses until they have reach a certain level of proficiency. Some skills cannot be taught on the flat surface and artificial conditions of a golf range.

    My family and I have enjoyed the pitch and putt, and it encouraged my son to continue this activity into adulthood.

    Without such local starter level courses, where will our next golfing superstars learn their trade, be that male or female.

    Also, if the council persist with their plan to interfere with current parking arrangements in Upminster, there will be a plentiful supply of empty shops available for conversion to housing.

  2. What kind of housing is being planned ? and what are the plans as far as the disruption this will cause to the residents in upminster? Hall lane is already a very congested road especially during school times and the excessive parking is also a problem for us residents who already pay a very high level of council tax.

  3. I attended the meeting last night,
    My objection is appended below.


    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.

    Michael Dugdale

Leave a Reply

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