London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Notice of Meeting
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
Tuesday, 5 November 2002 - Town Hall, Barking, 7:00 pm
Members: Councillor Mrs J E Bruce (Chair), Councillor I S Jamu (Deputy Chair), Councillor Ms M G Baker, Councillor W F L Barns, Councillor Mrs J Blake, Councillor B Cook, Councillor A H G Cooper, Councillor Mrs V W Cridland, Councillor W C Dale, Councillor J R Denyer, Councillor M A R Fani, Councillor Mrs K J Flint, Councillor A Gibbs, Councillor F C Jones, Councillor M A McCarthy, Councillor Mrs J E Rawlinson, Councillor S Summerfield, Councillor A G Thomas, Councillor Mrs P A Twomey, Councillor J P Wainwright, Councillor L R Waker and Councillor Mrs M M West.
Declaration of Members Interest: In accordance with Article 1, Paragraph 12 of the Constitution, Members are asked to declare any direct/indirect financial or other interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting
28.10.02 Graham Farrant Chief Executive
Contact Officer Pauline Bonella Tel. 020 8227 2117 Fax: 020 8227 2171 Minicom: 020 8227 2685 e-mail: [email protected]
AGENDA
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Minutes - to confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2002 (Pages 1 - 9)
New Planning Applications
3. Plan A - 02/00655/FUL - 152 Broad Street, Dagenham (Pages 11 - 13)
4. Plan B - 02/00629/FUL - Former Bonabond Site (Boyers Lake) Western Avenue, Dagenham (Pages 15 - 17)
5. Plan C - 02/00431/FUL - 24A, 26A and 28A Station Parade, Barking (Pages 19 - 23)
BR/04/03/02 6. Plan D - 02/00546/FUL - 94 Wood Lane, Dagenham (Pages 25 - 27)
7. Plan E - 02/00617/FUL - 235 Oxlow Lane, Dagenham (Pages 29 - 31)
8. Plan F - 210 Ripple Road, Barking (Pages 33 - 35)
9. Plan G - 02/00154/FUL - Dupont Performance Coating, Freshwater Road, Dagenham (Pages 37 - 41)
10. Plan H - 02/00667/OUT - Land adjacent to 53 St Johns Road, Barking (Pages 43 - 47)
11. Plan I - 02/00593/FUL - YMCA, Rush Green Road, Romford (Pages 49 - 53)
12. Plan J - 02/00389/FUL - 1-2 Tudor Parade, High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford (Pages 55 - 59)
13. Plan K - 02/00485/FUL - Sub-station/land to the rear of 3-9 Lambourne Gardens, Barking (Pages 61 - 65)
14. Plan M - 02/00563/FUL - 14 Beccles Drive, Barking (Pages 67 - 73)
15. Plan N - 02/00712/FUL - 74 Shirley Gardens (Pages 75 - 77)
16. Plan O - 02/00708/FUL - London Works, Ripple Road, Barking (Pages 79 - 85)
17. Plan P - 02/00316/FUL - Oriel House (also known as New Enterprise House) 149-151 High Road, Chadwell Heath (Pages 87 - 91)
18. Plan Q - 02/00652/FUL - 953 Longbridge Road, Dagenham (Pages 93 - 97)
Advertisement Applications
19. Plan L - 02/00610/ADV - Texaco Petrol Filling Station, Whalebone Lane South, Dagenham (Pages 99 - 101)
Channel Tunnel Rail Link
20. Plan R - 02/00726/CTRL - Old Coal Yard - CTRL construction site south of railway line, Choats Road (Pages 103 - 107)
- oOo -
21. Town Planning Appeals (Page 109)
22. Delegated Decisions (Pages 111 - 120)
23. London Riverside - Urban Strategy (Pages 121 - 126)
BR/04/03/02 24. To consider whether it would be appropriate to pass a resolution pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972
Private Business
The public and press have a legal right to attend Council meetings such as the Development Control Board, except where business is confidential or certain other sensitive information is to be discussed. There are no such items at the time of preparing this agenda.
25. Any confidential or exempt items which the Chair decides are urgent
BR/04/03/02 This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 2
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
Tuesday, 8 October 2002 (7.00 - 9.06 p.m.)
Present: Councillor Mrs J E Bruce (Chair), Councillor I S Jamu (Deputy Chair), Councillor Ms M G Baker, Councillor Mrs J Blake, Councillor A H G Cooper, Councillor Mrs V W Cridland, Councillor W C Dale, Councillor M A R Fani, Councillor Mrs K J Flint, Councillor A Gibbs, Councillor F C Jones, Councillor S Kallar, Councillor A G Thomas, Councillor Mrs P A Twomey and Councillor J P Wainwright.
Also Present: Councillor Mrs V M Rush.
Apologies: Councillor W F L Barns, Councillor B Cook, Councillor J R Denyer, Councillor M A McCarthy, Councillor Mrs J E Rawlinson, Councillor S Summerfield, Councillor L R Waker and Councillor Mrs M M West.
17. Minutes (3 September 2002)
Agreed
New Planning Applications
18. Plan A - 02/00198/FUL - Phase 2A, Barking Reach, Barking
Amended Application: Development of Zones 6, 7 and 8 (1.38 ha) to provide 88 Residential Units comprising 20 x three bedroom houses, 32 x two bedroom houses, 22 two bedroom flats, 13 x 1 bedroom flats and a 3 bedroom maisonette together with access roads, car parking and landscaping. Bellway Homes - Thames Gateway
Permission granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development proceeds in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, referenced Drawing No. L(9)01 Rev S, Z6 P001 Rev R, Z6 P002 Rev R, Z6 P003 Rev P, Z6 P004 Rev A, Z7 P001 Rev P, Z7 P002 Rev P, Z7 P003 Rev P, Z7 P004 Rev P, Z7 P005 Rev P, Z7 P006 Rev P, Z8 P001 Rev P, Z8 P002 Rev P, Z8 P003 Rev P and drawn by D.R.W. Architects. 2. B1 Time limit. 3. No building construction works shall take place on the site until such time as a landscape plan for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This landscape plan shall show any existing or proposed trees, shrubs, hedgerows and grassed areas on the site. 4. The landscaping scheme as approved in accordance with Condition 3 shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of construction of the buildings to which the landscaping relates. All landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with Appendix 4 of the Planning Statement submitted with the application and in accordance with the maintenance notes written on the draft landscape
BR/04/03/02 Page 1 plan submitted by Mason Richards. 5. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the date of the initial landscape, implementation die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced by the consent holder in the next planting season with others of similar size and species in accordance with the approved scheme unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. 6. Fencing along the majority of the south boundary of these zones fronting onto the public open space or nature reserve shall be 1.8m closed board wooden fencing with an additional 400mm lightweight wooden trellis on top. Details of fencing shall be submitted and approved in writing prior to any development on site commencing. 7. N7 Dust suppression. 8. H1 No further domestic extensions (Classes A, B, C and D). 9. The car parking access and manoeuvring areas indicated on Drawing No. L(P)01 Rev S shall be constructed and marked out prior to the occupation of the associated buildings. All car parking spaces are to be retained permanently for the accommodation of vehicles of occupiers and visitors to the premises and not used for any other purpose. In addition, there shall be no more than 47 spaces in Zone 7. 10. M4 Hours of construction work. 11. M5 Construction work (Noise). 12. No building construction works are to be commenced until detailed drawings are submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority indicating at least 18 of the approved dwellings are to be built to lifetime home standards in accordance with the specification set out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 13. The houses approved as lifetime homes in accordance with condition No. 12 shall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved under that condition unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 14. No building construction works shall commence until details of dustbin enclosures showing the design, location and external appearance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved enclosures shall be provided before the occupation of the buildings to which they relate. 15. No building construction work shall commence until details/samples of all facing materials to be used in the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no facing materials shall be used in the construction works except those so approved without the further written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 16. Before the development is commenced a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this site investigation shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of ground and surface water, including provisions for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved.
BR/04/03/02 Page 2 17. The construction of the foul and surface water drainage systems shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of any buildings on the site.
19. Plan B - 02/00191/FUL - 47 - 49 River Road, Barking
Permission refused for the following reason: The proposed development would lead to the creation of an isolated leisure/community facility, which is not integrated into existing localised services and unlikely to be accessed by the use of public transport and, in respect of the proposed community facilities, would be contrary to policy C.2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
20. Plan C - 01/00669/FUL - 754 - 756 Green Lane, Dagenham
Permission refused for the following reason: The proposed change of use is contrary to Policy LP.RT6 of the London Borough of Redbridge Unitary Development Plan in that no provision has been made to control the potential litter generation from the development and as such, the development would adversely affect the appearance and character of the area.
21. Plan D - 02/00554/FUL - 96 High Road, Chadwell Heath
Permission be refused for the following reason: The proposed change of use would undermine the vitality and viability of the Chadwell Heath shopping area, as it would result in more than 30% of the measured frontage of this parade being in non retail use, contrary to Policy S5 of the Unitary Development Plan.
22. Plan E - 02/00550/FUL - 418 Dagenham Road, Rush Green
Permission refused for the following reason: The proposal is contrary to Policies G4 and H22 of the Unitary Development Plan and would both erode the characteristic openness of the Green Belt and detract from the visual amenities enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers.
23. Plan F - 02/00440/FUL - Land adjacent to 112 Faircross Avenue and to the rear of 125 Park Avenue, Barking
Permission refused for the following reason: The proposed house does not respect the existing pattern of development in the area and would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers by reason of visual intrusion and a sense of enclosure, contrary to Policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan.
24. Plan G - 02/00423/FUL - 931 Green Lane, Dagenham
Permission refused for the following reason: The change of use would undermine the vitality and viability of the local shopping parade, as it would result in more than 30% of the measured frontage of this parade being in non retail use and consolidate a significant break in the
BR/04/03/02 Page 3 retail frontage, contrary to Policy S6 of the Unitary Development Plan.
25. Plan H - 02/00619/FUL - H Building, Ford Motor Company, Dagenham
Permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Q.3 Matching facing materials. 2. R.1 Ramped access.
26. Plan I - 02/00240/FUL - 71 - 93 Tanner Street, Barking
Subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement in respect of: 1. The provision of affordable housing comprising 8 one bedroom flats for key workers and 4 two bedroom flats for general needs renting; 2. A contribution of £45,000 towards improvements to Barking Park; 3. The transfer of an area of amenity land in the northeast part of the site upon such request by the Council in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the Triangle site.
Permission granted subject to the following conditions: 1. F.1 Details of soft landscaping. 2. F.2 Implementation of proposed soft landscaping. 3. F.4 Details of hard landscaping. 4. For clarification purposes no approval is hereby given to the details of the proposed soft and hard landscaping scheme shown on drawing number JBA 02/085-01. 5. I.5 Vehicular access. 6. I.6 Completion of parking areas. 7. The approved scheme shall make provision for cycle parking in accordance with a scheme that shall have been previously submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 8. M.4 Hours of construction work. 9. O.1 Details of dustbin enclosures. 10. P.1 Details of boundary treatment. 11. Q.1 Details/samples of facing materials. 12. All ground floor flats shall be built to Lifetime Homes standards in accordance with the specification set out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 13. T.1 Programme of excavations - Archaeology. 14. Before the development is commenced a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this site investigation shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provisions for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved. 15. A horizontal access strip 4 metres wide adjacent to the Loxford Water must be left free from any permanent development, including fences and other obstructions. 16. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until all redundant
BR/04/03/02 Page 4 footway crossings adjacent to the site have been reinstated into the footway in accordance with details to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. 17. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until details of dropped kerbs and tactile paving to the access roads for the scheme have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings. 18. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until details of the pedestrian and vehicular security gates to the site have been submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority. 19. All planting within 8 metres of Loxford Water shall be of native species, indigenous to the area and of UK genetic origin.
27. Plan J - 02/00539/FUL - 84C Westminster Gardens, Barking
Permission refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development would fail to make satisfactory provision for accessible, usable off-street parking spaces for the occupiers of 4 one bedroom flats, contrary to the Council's Interim Parking Standards and Policies H13 and H17 of the Unitary Development Plan. 2. The proposed two storey extension by reason of its excessive depth would be an intrusive addition causing a loss of outlook for the occupiers of 86 Westminster Gardens, contrary to Policy H22 of the Unitary Development Plan. 3. The proposed development would fail to provide adequately sized units of accommodation for the benefit of potential residential occupiers, contrary to Policy H16 of the Unitary Development Plan.
28. Plan K - 02/00542/FUL - 17 Ripple Road, Barking
Permission refused for the following reason: The conversion of the storeroom area is contrary to policy H3, H13, H15 and H16 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan as it would result in the creation of a substandard unit of residential accommodation in a poor environmental location.
29. Plan L - 02/00590/FUL - 37 Braintree Road, Dagenham
Permission refused for the following reason: The conservatory is contrary to Policy H22 Appendix 7 of the Unitary Development Plan in relation to its depth and siting on the boundary and would be intrusive and detrimental to the amenity and privacy of the occupier at 39 Braintree Road.
30. Plan N - 02/00570/FUL - 92 Longbridge Road, Barking
Permission refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development fails to provide a quality unit of accommodation, by reason of internal habitable space and private amenity space for the benefit of potential occupiers, contrary to Policies H15 and H16 of the Unitary Development Plan. 2. The proposed use of the outbuilding as living accommodation would
BR/04/03/02 Page 5 represent over-development of the site, leading to a loss of amenity for existing occupiers of the site, contrary to Policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Council Developments
31. Plan M - 02/00572/REG3 - Fanshawe Adult College, Dagenham - Demountable Building
Permission granted subject to the following condition: The use shall not be commenced until sound insulation measures have been carried out within the new music block in accordance with details, which have been submitted to and approved by the planning Authority. Such details shall include the proposed internal layout of the premises.
With regard to this application we were mindful of the comments made by a local resident regarding the use of the building as a music block. We have requested officers to arrange a meeting for a represented group of residents with the School, the Agents and planning officers to discuss the residents’ concerns.
32. Plan O - 02/00628/REG3 - Dagenham Priory Comprehensive School, Dagenham - Arts & Technology Building
Permission granted subject to the following conditions: 1. F.1 Details of soft landscaping. 2. F.2 Implementation of soft landscaping. 3. F.4 Details of hard landscaping. 4. M.4 Hours of construction work. 5. P.1 Details of boundary treatment. 6. Q.1 Details/samples of facing materials. 7. R.1 Ramped access.
33. Plan R - 02/00618/OUT - Outline Application - Jo Richardson School, Barking plus associated Community facilities
Permission granted subject to the following conditions: 1. C.1 Reserve matters. 2. C.2 Submission of details. 3. C.3 Commencement. 4. U.1 Land contamination survey. 5. I.8 Vehicle parking (Outline) 6. P.1 Details of boundary treatment. 7. M.4 Hours of construction work. 8. M.5 Construction work (Noise). 9. N.7 Dust suppression. 10. The use of the site for educational purposes, or any other purposes set out in the application, shall not commence until such time as Pedestrian Crossing facilities on Renwick Road, adjacent to the site access, have been approved and completed to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority. 11. The use of the site for educational purposes shall not commence until such time as a bus service to the School is operational to the
BR/04/03/02 Page 6 satisfaction of the Highways Authority. 12. Members noted the comments of the Environment Agency and authorised officers to negotiate any additional conditions required. It was also noted that if agreement cannot be reached the decision to approve would stand.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link
34. Plan P - 02/00562/CTRL - Chequers Lane, Dagenham - Pedestrian Footbridge
Permission granted subject to the following condition: Details relating to the location and layout of the bus drop off and parking area be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing prior to any works commencing on site.
35. Plan Q - 02/00638/CTRL - Dagenham Dock Station Car Park, Chequers Lane, Dagenham
Permission granted subject to the following condition: Detailed design of the lifts be submitted and approved in writing prior to the completion and opening of the footbridge to the general public, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.
-oOo-
36. Town Planning Appeals
(i) Lodged - None
(ii) Determined - The Secretary of State has dismissed two appeals (i) Erection of entrance porch to garden centre building - Sungate Nursery, Collier Row Road (01/00350/FUL) (ii) Erection of front canopy to shop - Sungate Nursery, Collier Row Road (01/00499/FUL).
An appeal has been allowed for the erection of a first floor extension, external staircase and alterations to external appearance of outbuilding in connection with use of first floor as one bedroom flat - Outbuildings of 93/95 Beaconsfield Terrace, High Road (01/00716/FUL).
(iii) Appeals Withdrawn - None.
37. Delegated Decisions
Received details of delegated approved decisions for the period 15 August to 11 September 2002 as set out below:
DC/02/00311/FUL 124 Beam Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00330/FUL 70A Longbridge Road, Barking DC/02/00347/FUL 24 Upney Lane, Barking DC/02/00374/FUL 77 Longbridge Road, Barking DC/02/00394/FUL 96A Glenny Road, Barking DC/02/00433/FUL 20 Monteagle Avenue, Barking DC/02/00438/FUL 67 Salisbury Avenue, Barking
BR/04/03/02 Page 7 DC/02/00438/FUL 67 Salisbury Avenue, Barking DC/02/00448/FUL Erection of Stable Block, Hooks Hall Farm House Riding School, The Chase Rush Green Romford DC/02/00452/FUL 314 Dagenham Road, Dagenham DC/02/00476/FUL 47 Thames Road, Barking DC/02/00480/FUL 46 Western Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00490/FUL 247 Western Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00495/FUL 29 Review Road, Dagenham DC/02/00509/FUL Wickes Stores Hertford Road Retail Park, Hertford Road, Barking DC/02/00518/FUL 1 Bainbridge Road, Dagenham DC/02/00520/FUL 123 Valence Wood Road, Dagenham DC/02/00523/FUL 102 Babington Road, Dagenham DC/02/00526/FUL 43 Westminster Gardens, Barking DC/02/00586/ADV 2 Station Parade, Barking DC/02/00513/FUL 116 Alderman Avenue, Barking DC/02/00529/FUL 113 Cornwallis Road, Dagenham DC/02/00530/FUL 24 Ashton Gardens, Chadwell Heath DC/02/00534/FUL 242 Porters Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00536/FUL Monteagle Infants School Site, Dagenham DC/02/00538/FUL 6 Croppath Road, Dagenham DC/02/00540/FUL 86 Keppel Road, Dagenham DC/02/00545/FUL 61 Winterbourne Road, Dagenham DC/02/00549/FUL 39 Mayeswood Gardens, Dagenham DC/02/00552/ADV 761 Becontree Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00553/FUL 72 St Georges Road, Dagenham DC/02/00557/FUL 100 Cannington Road, Dagenham DC/02/00579/ADV 21 East Street, Barking DC/02/00304/REG3 Fanshawe Adult College, Fanshawe Crescent, Dagenham DC/02/00501/FUL 80 Groveway, Dagenham DC/02/00512/FUL 7 Keppel Road, Dagenham DC/02/00547/FUL 44 Woodlands Avenue, Chadwell Heath DC/02/00551/FUL 92 Stanley Avenue, Barking DC/02/00555/ADV 2-8 Whalebone Lane South, Dagenham DC/02/00556/FUL 10 Stevens Road, Dagenham DC/02/00559/FUL 2-8 Whalebone Lane South, Dagenham DC/02/00577/FUL 13 Keel Close, Barking DC/02/00581/FUL 159 Great Cullings, Rush Green, Romford DC/02/00584/ADV 95 Orchard Road, Dagenham DC/02/00660/CLUE 9a Chequers Parade, Ripple Road, Dagenham
BR/04/03/02 Page 8
Background Papers - General Statement
The Background Papers to the planning applications referred to in this agenda comprise the following: -
1. The planning application as submitted or subsequently revised including all forms and plans, etc.
2. The application case sheet, inspection report, photographs, etc.
3. An Ordnance Survey sheet extract showing the application site and the surrounding area.
4. Standard planning conditions as adopted by the Council.
5. Relevant policies from the Unitary Development Plan as appropriate.
6. Copies of all statutory and non-statutory consultations and related correspondence except where they are strictly confidential.
7. The relevant planning history of the application site.
Specific documents, which have been used as a background paper for a particular planning application and, which is not included in the above, are detailed as appropriate at the end of the individual report concerned. These files and documents may be inspected at:
Leisure and Environmental Services Department 127 Ripple Road Barking IG11 7PB
Contact Officer: Tim Lewis - 020 8227 3706
Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 10 AGENDA ITEM 3 Plan: A DC/02/00655/FUL River Ward (R)
Address: 152 Broad Street, Dagenham
Development: Erection of a single storey rear extension to provide kitchen and enlarged front dormer window
Applicant: Mr and Mrs Savage
Introduction and Description of Development
The application premises comprise a two storey mid-terrace residential dwelling on the west side of Broad Street in Dagenham adjacent to the junction with Lower Broad Street. This terrace of houses is opposite a terrace of mixed use buildings with retail shops and businesses located at street level.
This application relates to the erection of a 3.6 metre deep single storey rear extension and the enlargement of the original front dormer window from a width of 2.25 metres to 5.1 metres.
Background
None.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
Neighbours have been consulted. No comments were received.
UDP Policy
H22. Extensions and Alterations and Appendix 7
Policy issue – enlargement of front dormer window intrusive.
Analysis
The proposal does not comply with UDP Policy H.22 which states that extensions and alterations to dwellings should not be visually intrusive. It is considered that the enlargement of the front dormer window would be visually intrusive and not sympathetic to the nature of the original building.
This terrace of houses were built in a chalet style with discreetly designed dormer windows set within a large roofspace. The proposed development would more than double the width of the dormer window and distort the symmetry of the roofscape.
Moreover, the proposal does not comply with guidelines set out in Appendix 7 of the UDP for dormer windows which state that dormer windows should be designed so that they do not dominate the original dwelling and should face the rear of the dwelling.
It is normal practice to refuse permission for applications for dormer windows facing the street, other than in exceptional circumstances. There are no other similar dormer windows on surrounding dwellings on Broad Street. Page 11
There are no objections to the rear extension which accords with Council policy.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
The proposed enlargement of the front dormer window is contrary to UDP Policy H22 as it would dominate the roofscape of the building and would represent an intrusive feature detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.
Page 12 AGENDA ITEM 4 Plan: B DC/02/00629/FUL Village Ward (R)
Address: Former Bonabond site (Boyers Lake) Western Avenue, Dagenham
Development: Retention of boundary fence
Applicant: Tulsemere Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprises land adjacent to Boyers Lake, which forms part of the Beam Valley Country Park, which is owned and maintained by the Council. The lake can be accessed from Rainham Road South and Western Avenue. The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and a nature conservation area. This application relates to the retention of a new 2.6m high fence, surrounding the north bank of the lake and was received following an enforcement enquiry. The fence comprises concrete posts and green chain link mesh with 3 strands of barbed wire above. The fence is located between the existing 1.1m rail and post fence and the lake. The lake is a private fishing lake within the public open space of the Beam Valley Country Park.
Background
A Planning Contravention notice has been served as a precursor to service of an enforcement notice.
Consultations a) Publicity
A site notice was posted at the entrance to the Country Park but no comments were received. b) Leisure- Parks and Countryside
Comments were received from the Beam Valley Project Officer. His main concerns are outlined below:
1. The fence is contrary to the principle of creating a Country Park, as it is obstructing views across Boyers Lake. 2. Tulsemere are in breach of their licence because consent from the Council as landlords was not obtained before they submitted their application. 3. The existing wooden fence has been erected in line with advice from Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) regarding water safety concerns.
UDP Policy
G.3 Acceptable Developments (Green Belts) G.42 Protected Sites (Nature Conservation)
Policy issue- Intrusive appearance of fence.
Page 15
Analysis
The adopted UDP policy in respect of Green Belt development is based closely on the guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts), which was revised in January 1995, just prior to the adoption of the Council’s own policies as contained in the UDP. These set out appropriate developments in Green Belt locations and seek to ensure that developments would not be out of character with the nature of Green Belts with regard to siting, size, scale, mass, materials and design. As such there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development and the applicants must show very special circumstances if such development is to gain approval. PPG2 states that these circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
It is contended that the fence erected by Tulsemere should be considered as an inappropriate development within the Green Belt as it is considered overly large and incorporates barbed wire which could be considered as a hazard to public safety. It also restricts the view from the adjoining footpath across the lake and is out of character with the Country Park as a whole and the existing rail and post fence erected by the Council. The Beam Valley Project Officer confirms that the existing fence conforms with advice from RoSPA. They were commissioned by the Council in 1999 to produce a Water Safety Assessment for Boyers Lake, and in their report the wooden fence was suggested and duly erected in early 2002.
During the enforcement action, an Enforcement Officer advised Tulsemere that if the fence were to be reduced in height to 2 metres it would not have required planning permission. However rather than reduce its height, the director of Tulsemere decided to apply for permission for the retention of the fence.
The applicant has not provided the Council with any supporting information which could constitute the very special circumstances required to approve a development which is considered to out of character with the nature of the Green Belt.
In the circumstances it is considered that the fence is contrary to policy G.3, Acceptable Developments in the Green Belt, as it is too large and over-dominant and as it restricts the views across the lake and therefore it is considered that planning permission should be refused.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The development is contrary to policy G.3 of the Unitary Development Plan and the advice given in PPG2 in that it is unduly dominant and unattractive and out of character with the nature of the Green Belt.
Page 16 AGENDA ITEM 5 Plan: C DC/02/00431/FUL Abbey Ward (A)
Address: 24A, 26A and 28A Station Parade, Barking
Development: Continuance of use of premises as hostel
Applicant: Mr Ali Ashgar Kadkhodgaji-Kholghi
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprises the upper two floors and roofspace of a three storey building on the south eastern side of Station Parade within Barking town centre. The ground floor of the premises are in retail use.
The application proposes to continue the use of the premises as a hostel, which has been in use in its present form since 1999. The premises is divided into 28 bedrooms for a maximum of 40 residents with associated bathrooms, toilets and kitchens. The property is used as temporary accommodation for a mixture of people forwarded to the property by a number of local authorities, including Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge, Havering, Thurrock, Bracknell, Tower Hamlets and Kensington and Chelsea as well as from the local health authority.
The authorities use the premises to house the clientele on a bed and breakfast basis for a temporary period until more permanent accommodation is found. The majority of the individuals and families sent to the hostel are considered to be homeless by local authorities and it is the local authorities that undertake the vetting procedure before they are sent to the accommodation. The applicant lists five types of people who are predominantly housed at the site, they are:
- those who have suffered home repossession; - people affected by domestic problems, e.g., from marital separations; - those forced out of their homes for urgent Council house refurbishment; - young people who have been evicted from their homes and who are the responsibility of local Councils; - refugees from other nations.
Guests generally stay at the hostel for anything from 1 day to 3-4 months depending on the speed that more permanent accommodation can be provided.
The hostel is run by a mixture of resident managers, administrative staff, cleaners and catering employees. The premises is staffed 24 hours a day with managers being on the premises at all times, enforcing the house rules ( a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1). Visitors are only allowed into the hostel between 9am and 10pm and they are required to sign in and out of the property. Entrance is secured via an intercom system and a CCTV system has been installed to monitor movements into the property. There is also a 24-hour security presence on the site.
Background
Planning permission was granted in 1994 for the conversion of the second floor of 28 Station Parade from office use to 3 studio flats (DC/00279/94). The Planning Division became aware of the use of the premises as a hostel in May 2002 following an investigation into the premises by the Council’s Housing Standards section. A planning application soon followed. Page 19
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
In response to the public consultation exercise a total of two letters of objection were received. The main concern was that the siting of the hostel in the town centre was not felt to be appropriate, particularly given the proximity of the new Odeon development. Moreover, an objector was concerned that the area needed to be ‘uplifted’ and not become ‘another Sangette’.
b) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection
The applicants have undertake a small number of internal alterations to ensure that the hostel provides a satisfactory level of accommodation.
c) Building Control – Access Officer
No objections.
d) Traffic and Road Safety Section
No objections.
UDP Policy
H7 Special Needs Housing H11 Multiple Occupation Housing
No policy issue.
Analysis
The Council’s Unitary Development Plan makes specific reference (in the ‘justification for Policy H7) to the need to provide a small hostel to cater for the needs of people in disadvantaged situations. In that sense, this development fulfils such a requirement by providing temporary hostel accommodation for those desperately in need of immediate housing. Indeed the Accommodation Team Manager of the Asylum Seekers Team states that the hostel addresses “the shortage of temporary accommodation in the Borough”.
The applicants have supplied the Planning Division with letters of support from the Barking and Dagenham Asylums Seekers Team, Bracknell Forest Borough Council’s Social Services Section and the North East London Mental Health NHS trust, each of them testifying to the high standard of accommodation at the hostel and the quality service that is provided. Moreover, the hostel is frequently used by a number of other London local authorities suggesting quality of the accommodation on offer and also the need throughout the region for it.
With regard to the hostel’s siting, the occupants of the hostel have the full range of facilities that Barking town centre has on offer, notably in respect of the public transport options available. Its location within Barking town centre means that the numbers of tenants at the site would likely be less prevalent in the local environment than if located in a quieter residential area where the presence of a 32-bed hostel could have a more noticeable and potentially detrimental impact. Additionally, being sited opposite Barking Train Station and adjacent to numerous bus routes, the lack Page 20 of car parking provision accompanying the development is not considered to be a concern, particularly as the residents are unlikely to require such provision.
It is worth noting that although the hostel has been in operation since 1999, there is no record of any complaints in relation to the use of the premises and there is no evidence of problems associated with the use. Moreover, the management of the hostel and the rules employed serve to minimise the impact that the development has upon the surroundings and helps to create a safe and secure environment for the residents.
The hostel meets the requirements of multiple occupation housing in that it provides a level of accommodation considered to be acceptable to the Council’s Housing Standards Team.
In conclusion, the hostel serves to satisfy an identified need within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and beyond providing short-term accommodation to those in the most need in an area that does not significantly undermine the amenity of others.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted.
Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 22 Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 24 AGENDA ITEM 6 Plan: D DC/02/00546/FUL Parsloes Ward (R)
Address: 94 Wood Lane, Dagenham
Development: Use of retail unit as hot food shop (Class A3)
Applicant: Mr S P Barua
Introduction and Description of Development
The application premises comprises a ground floor vacant retail unit on the southern side of Wood Lane, adjacent to the junction with Parsloes Avenue within the Martins Corner local centre as designated in the Unitary Development Plan.
The application proposes the change of use of the premises from Class A1 (retail) use to a Class A3 (hot food) use.
Background
None relevant
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
A total of three objection letters were received to this proposal. Concern was raised that the proposal would exacerbate existing noise and disturbance problems and cause additional parking pressures and road safety problems in the vicinity. In addition, objection was raised to the number of similar premises already in existence in the area and the pollution that is caused. Two objectors stated that the proposal would undermine local businesses and that the use would be a fire risk to adjacent units.
b) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection
No response.
UDP Policy
S6 Local Centres and Local Parades
Policy issue in respect of maximum non-retail frontage limit (30%) within the designated parade.
Analysis
Policy S6 of the Unitary Development Plan stipulates that non-retail uses within the designated local centre of which this premises form part should not exceed 30% of the measured frontage (84-100 Wood Lane) in order to safeguard the vitality and viability of local centres.
In this instance, the loss of this premises as an A1 retail unit would result in 34% of the measured frontage in non-retail use, contrary to the requirements of Policy S6. The development is currently in use as a retail shop and applicants have not
Page 25 furnished the Planing Division with any information to suggest that the continuance of this use can no longer be supported.
With regard to the objections received, it is not considered that an A3 use would necessarily result in any more parking pressures or road safety concerns than other types of retail outlet. Moreover, the Council would insist that all new A3 uses would conform to strict environmental health standards to ensure that any pollution concerns are minimised and likewise the Planning Division has no basis to suggest that the use would pose a fire risk. The issue of commercial competition is not a planning consideration.
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would undermine the vitality of the retail parade and a refusal is recommended.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed change of use is contrary to Policy S.6 of the Unitary Development Plan, as it would result in more than 30% of the frontage of this parade within the Martins Corner Local Shopping Centre being in non-retail use, and would reduce the vitality and viability of the centre as a whole.
Page 26 Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 28 AGENDA ITEM 7 Plan: E DC/02/00617/FUL Heath Ward (R)
Address: 235 Oxlow Lane, Dagenham
Development: Use of retail shop as office (Class B1)
Applicant: Mr B McGregor
Introduction and Description of Development
The application premises comprises a ground floor vacant retail unit on the northern side of Oxlow Lane within the Oxlow Lane local centre as designated in the Unitary Development Plan.
The application proposes the change of use of the premises from Class A1 (retail) use to a Class B1 (office) use. The applicants are already operating from this address.
Background
The application was received following an enforcement investigation begun in April 2002 into the unauthorised use of the premises as an Class B1 (office) use. A planning contravention notice has already been served as a precursor to the service of an enforcement notice.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
No response. b) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection
No response. c) Access Officer
No response.
UDP Policy
S6 Local Centres and Local Parades
Policy issue in respect of maximum non-retail frontage limit (30%) within the designated parade.
Analysis
Policy S6 of the Unitary Development Plan stipulates that non-retail uses within the designated local centre of which this premises form part should not exceed 30% of the measured frontage (203-243 Oxlow Lane). In setting this limit the policy seeks to protect the range of facilities on offer to local people to meet their day to day requirements.
Page 29 In this instance, the loss of this premises as an A1 retail unit results in some 43% of the measured frontage being in non-retail use, exceeding the maximum limit by 13% and, therefore, contrary to the requirements of Policy S6. The applicants have not furnished the Planing Division with any information to suggest that the unit is no longer viable as an A1 unit.
The applicants use the premises as an administrative base for their property maintenance activities rather than as a retail outlet. Accordingly, the operation could be carried out at a premises which do not undermine the vitality and viability of a local retail centre, whilst the Council is attempting to safeguard a range of retail options for the benefit of the surrounding community. In operating as a B1 office, the site no longer presents a retail frontage and is not considered to be compatible with the parade.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed change of use is contrary to Policy S.6 of the Unitary Development Plan, as it would result in more than 30% of the frontage of this parade within the Oxlow Lane Local Shopping Centre being in non-retail use, and would reduce the vitality and viability of the centre as a whole.
Members are advised that should planning permission be refused enforcement action will be taken to secure the discontinuance of the unauthorised use.
Page 30 Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 32 AGENDA ITEM 8 Plan: F DC/02/00646/FUL Gascoigne Ward (R)
Address: 210 Ripple Road, Barking
Development: Erection of single storey rear extension in connection with use as self contained flat
Applicant: Mr Pun
Introduction and Description of Development
The application premises comprises the rear ground floor element of a three storey property on the southern side of Ripple Road, the front portion of which is used for retail purposes. The two floors above the shop are in residential use with access from the rear. There is an existing single storey rear extension at the rear of the property which is currently used as office and storage space for the ground floor shop. The rear of the property is accessed via a track leading off Morley Road which provides access for 200-214 Ripple Road.
This application proposes the erection of a 3 metre deep addition to the single storey rear extension in connection with the creation of a one-bedroom flat. The extension will now measure 12.2 metres deep, 4.4 metre wide and 3.6 metres high. A one metre gap will be retained between the proposed extension and a similar built extension at 208 Ripple Road allowing access to the new flat, the shop and to the flats above.
Background
Planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension in June 1987 (DC/86/00658/TP).
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
The occupier of 210A Ripple Road objected on the grounds that the development could result in difficulties accessing the entrance to the flat via the one metre alleyway between 208 and 210 Ripple Road, particularly with access to the new flat and the shop having access from this point. Moreover, there was some concern that the development would result in a loss of garden space and result in overlooking over the alleyway.
UDP Policy
H13-H17 New Residential Development
Policy issue in respect of unsatisfactory habitable floor area, lack of amenity space and parking provision and potential detrimental impact on flats above.
Analysis
Planning policy requires that new residential development integrates well with the surrounding environment and provides quality standard accommodation for the potential occupiers.
Page 33
In respect of the structure itself, it is not considered that the building will necessarily undermine the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers. By being located adjacent to retail units, the extension will not result in the loss of light to adjoining occupiers nor have a negative impact upon visual amenity. However, the development will result in potentially unsatisfactory access points to the new flat, the residences above and the shop. All these developments will have a single point of access from the rear, that is down a 1 metre wide alleyway. The potential for conflict is apparent, particularly as the alleyway could be used for to bring in goods, therefore giving rise to access concerns for those seeking to enter or leave residential properties. A separation of access for the commercial and residential users would be a preferred option.
As regards the quality of accommodation, it is considered that this proposal represents sub-standard residential development. The habitable floor space provided amount 27.7 square metres where UDP policy requires 28.5 square metres for minimum levels of living area. Moreover, the development does not provide any amenity space nor parking provision for the benefit of the potential occupiers in what is an edge of town centre location over 800 metres walk from Barking Station where such facilities are considered to be appropriate.
Notwithstanding the above, it is felt that the siting of a residential flat at the back of a shop outside of the town centre is not satisfactory form of accommodation. The narrowness of the alleyway and the proximity of the neighbouring extension will mean that the occupiers would have very little natural light entering their kitchen and living room areas and they would be presented with a view of a brick wall.
The matter raised in objection regarding the overlooking of the alleyway is not felt to be of significant concern as the applicants could install windows into the extension at any time without the benefit of planning permission and the space referred to is not usable amenity space for the occupiers of the flats above the shop. The issue about the loss of ‘garden’ is likewise not felt to be a significant point as the area referred to is a small piece of hardstanding adjacent to the entrance to the back of a shop.
In conclusion, the development would represent a poor unit of accommodation for the potential occupiers and it would likely have a detrimental impact upon the existing users of the site.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The development would result in a sub-standard unit of accommodation by reason of inadequate habitable floor area, lack of private amenity space and insufficient parking provision, contrary to Policies H15 and H16 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Interim Parking Standards.
2. The development would result in potential conflict between the residential and commercial occupiers of the site due to the narrow shared accessway, contrary to Policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 34 Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 36 AGENDA ITEM 9 Plan: G DC/02/00154/FUL Valence Ward (A)
Address: Dupont Performance Coating, Freshwater Road, Dagenham
Development: Erection of 3 storey office building in connection with use of site for plant storage and maintenance
Applicant: Emerson Crane Hire Limited
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is approximately 0.8 ha in size and situated on the south side of Freshwater Road from where it is accessed via an estate road. To the west of the site is the Seabrook Industrial Estate, whilst to the south is a smaller separate industrial site, which backs onto Lymington Fields. Both of these sites use the same estate road as the application site for access purposes. On the opposite side of Freshwater Road is the Baird Tatlock site, which is currently occupied by the Hoo Hing Company.
The applicants currently occupy a smaller site situated on the east-side of Chequers Lane, but due to the constraints of this site and the companies continuing expansion it no longer meets their day to day requirements. This application therefore seeks planning permission for the proposed use of the site for the storage and maintenance of truck mounted mobile telescopic cranes and would lead to the complete relocation of the applicant’s current operation from their existing site to Freshwater Road.
Part of the reason for relocating is not only the additional space required for an increased fleet of vehicles, but also the need for a new corporate headquarters building so that the company can give the right impression when clients can visit the site and modern facilities for staff. As part of the application therefore it is proposed to erect a new head office, which would be situated at the front of the site. The building would be three stories in height with a foot print of approximately 34m by 9m, which would be constructed out of facing brick with a glazed central lobby area extending through the 1st and 2nd floor and be finished with a pitched roof.
To the east of the main office building a further two storey building would be erected measuring 15.5m by 7.68m, which would provide 3 garages on the ground floor, with a yard office and staff canteen on the first floor. In addition to the 3 garages a further 12 designated car parking spaces would be provided in front of the office buildings. Directly behind the main office building would be the compound area, which would be marked out for the storage of the cranes when they are on site. Although the firm has at present only 30 cranes the compound area would allow a maximum of 40 vehicles to be parked in this area thereby allowing the applicant room for expansion as and when required.
Although the cranes have a maximum height of 44.2m when the boom is extended, the cranes would be kept in a lowered position when at the depot so that they would be no more than 3.3m in height, which would allow routine maintenance work to be carried out. This maintenance would be carried out in an existing building situated at the rear of the site. Although the building is in a dilapidated state the building would be renovated with the metal cladding above the brickwork painted in the applicant’s corporate colour of green.
Page 37 The front of the site and the western boundary would be substantially landscaped so as to screen the site from Freshwater Road, with a brick and wrought iron fencing to the Freshwater Road frontage and palisade fencing used to secure the remainder of the site. The applicant currently employs 20 office staff and approximately 60 other staff that include site assessors, crane drivers, crane engineers, estimators and training providers with the majority of employees living locally.
Supporting Statement
The applicant’s agents have submitted a statement in support of the proposal, which forms an appendix to this report.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 37 residential properties and industrial units were notified about the proposal, but no response was received.
b) Traffic and Road Safety Group
Verbally confirmed that a contribution of £5,000 towards highway improvements in the immediate vicinity is acceptable.
c) London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority – Fire Safety
The brigade is satisfied with the proposal.
d) Environment Agency
No objection to the proposed development provided conditions relating to land contamination survey and site foundations be attached to any consent granted.
e) Access Officer
Various comments made with regard to accessibility of site for disabled persons.
f) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection Team
Requests standard condition U1 (Land Contamination) be attached to any consent granted.
g) Metropolitan Police Service – Crime Prevention Advisor
The proposed building and associated car park area appear to have been well designed with consideration given to designing out crime.
UDP Policy
E.1 Employment Development Within Employment Areas E4/5 Access For People With Disabilities Interim Car Parking Standards
No policy Issue Page 38
Analysis
Policy E.1 states that the Council will encourage the retention and expansion of general industry in employment areas so as retain a wide range of jobs opportunities to meet the needs of all groups within the Borough. In this respect the proposed development would ensure that an existing business, which employs local residents, would remain within the Borough and facilitate its continued enlargement and growth. At the same time it would bring a currently vacant and derelict site situated in a prominent position on Freshwater Road, back into use.
Whilst it is accepted that a large part of the site would be designated for the open storage of vehicles, due to the nature of the business it is likely that at any one time the majority of the cranes would be on location and in use. Furthermore when the cranes are in use they are normally hired out for substantial periods of time so that it is unlikely that the vehicles would be coming and going from the site on a regular basis. In addition where a crane’s next job is further than 25 miles from the depot it is company policy that they will go straight to the next location when this is possible. As a result of this other than when the cranes require servicing the majority of the fleet will be in use and the compound will be empty. Consequently the only time when it is expected that the compound would be in full use would be during the Easter and Christmas periods when most construction sites are closed for a two week period and as such the required parking space is needed on site for these short periods.
Members are aware that highway improvement works have already started in the area with the replacement of the mini-roundabout at the junction of Freshwater Road/Valence Avenue with controlled traffic lights and further works are planned in the future. In light of this and the increase in traffic movements in the area as a result of this proposal the applicants have agreed to enter in a Section 106 Legal Agreement with regard to a contribution of £5,000 towards the improvement works.
With regard to the remaining comments received from the Environment Agency and the Council’s Environmental Protection Team the request condition for conditions to be attached should consent be granted are noted. In addition the issues raised by the Council’s Access Officer can be addressed through the imposition of additional conditions should consent be granted.
Overall the proposed development is acceptable and would result in the redevelopment of a vacant and derelict site, which currently has a detrimental impact on the appearance of the surrounding area, whilst providing suitable accommodation for an existing employer within the Borough.
Recommendation
That subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of a contribution of £5,000 towards highway improvement works planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. F.1 Details of Soft Landscaping
2. F.2 Implementation of Proposed Soft Landscaping
3. F.4 Details of Hard Landscaping
Page 39 4. I.4 Vehicle Access (Commercial)
5. I.6 Completion of Parking Areas
6. I.7 Use of Parking Areas
7. I.12 Cycle Parking
8. O.1 Details of Refuse Enclosures
9. P.1 Details of Boundary Treatment
10. Q.1 Details/Samples of Facing Materials
11. R.1 Ramped Access
12. Before the development is commenced a details site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this site investigation shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provisions for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved.
13. The construction of the site foundations shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences.
14. Before the development is commenced details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval for the location of 1 disabled car parking space. Once agreed this space shall be clearly marked with a British Standard disabled symbol and permanently retained for the use of disabled persons and their vehicles and for no other purpose.
Page 40 Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 42 AGENDA ITEM 10 Plan: H DC/02/00667/OUT Gascoigne Ward (R)
Address: Land adjacent to 53 St Johns Road, Barking
Development: Outline application: Erection of two storey, 2 bedroom end of terrace house
Applicant: Mr Kalsi
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is located to the east of 53 St Johns Road, Barking and is currently used as a side garden for this property. Number 53 is in a terrace of 4 houses, adjoining this terrace is another terrace of 4 houses of similar design. A wooden structure has recently been constructed to the side of the property, which does not have planning permission and enforcement action is currently being taken. The proposal is an outline application for a two storey, two bedroom house with rear garden and one off street parking space to the rear, accessed from Sparsholt Road. All matters concerning design, external appearance and landscaping are reserved for future submissions. The first floor of the property is to be set 1m back from the existing front building line. The rear of the property incorporates a part single/part two storey rear extension with a maximum depth of 5m. The first floor rear extension is approximately 2m deep and has a pitched tiled roof. The rear garden has been divided up to provide two garden spaces for both properties. To the rear of the garden, two car-parking spaces are provided for number 53, and one space is provided for the new house. To access these spaces a new footway crossover is proposed on Sparsholt Road.
Background
Enforcement action is currently in progress regarding the wooden structure to the side of the property.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers.
No comments were received. b) Traffic and Road Safety Section
The proposed additional crossover is unacceptable, as it would result in an excessive loss of footpath for pedestrian use.
UDP Policy
H13 New Residential Development H14 Environmental Requirements H15 Residential Amenity H17 Car Parking Standards and Interim Parking Standards H22 Extensions and Alterations (Appendix 7)
Policy issues in respect of the design of building, a shortfall in garden space, the overly large rear extension and unacceptability of proposed vehicular access for both the new and existing building. Page 43 Analysis
UDP policy requires that new residential development should have regard to:
“the height, scale, massing, size, density, materials, form and design of existing buildings and reflect the spaces around them” (Policy H13)
The plans show the proposed house as having a 1m set back on the first floor at the front. The 1m set back for the first floor on the proposed ‘new’ end of terrace house will be out of context with the existing building design and will appear alien to the rest of the terrace which has a flush appearance. It will also result in the ridge of the roof being set back slightly from the rest of the terrace and would appear to be out of character with the existing terrace. Moreover a feature of the terrace is the addition of a small porch to the front of each property. All of these porches look the same and create uniformity along the terrace. This porch has not be continued along the front of the new property.
Policy H15 states that a two bedroom property should provide 50 square metres of garden space and should have a minimum depth of 12 metres. The garden space provided for this dwelling is approximately 40 square metres, and is therefore significantly under the minimum standard with a shortfall of 10 square metres. The garden depth does meet the required 12m throughout the width of the plot.
The plans outline three off-street parking spaces, two of which will be used by number 53 and one is for the use of the new property. The number of spaces provided does meet the maximum standards as set out in the Interim Parking Standards: January 2002. However comments received from Traffic and Road Safety indicate they would not grant permission for the extended crossover which would allow access to these new spaces. At present to the north of the site there are 6 Council-owned garages which are accessed from two double width crossovers. The proposed crossover outlined in the plans would be directly to the south of one of these existing crossovers. This would result in a crossover 4 times the standard width and is seen as an excessive loss of footpath for pedestrian use and could result in vehicular/ pedestrian conflict. Therefore the spaces shown on the plans cannot be safely accessed from Sparsholt Road and therefore the proposal cannot provide sufficient satisfactorily sited off-street parking spaces.
Policy H22 and Appendix 7 states that rear extensions should normally be restricted to 3.65m in depth to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposed house includes a part two, part single storey rear extension which has an overall depth of 5m. The two storey section is approximately 2.2m deep. It is therefore considered that this projection would have a serious adverse affect on the amenity of the adjoining property.
In conclusion, the proposed development is out of character with regard to the design of the front elevation by virtue of the 1m first floor set back. It also does not provide the minimum residential amenity space and includes a rear extension which is excessive in depth. Moreover the off-street parking spaces cannot be accessed safely from Sparsholt Road as the proposed footway crossover would be unacceptably wide.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
Page 44 1) The design and character of the proposed new dwelling is out of keeping with the existing terrace and is contrary to Policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).
2) The residential amenity space provided by the proposal is below the minimum required and is therefore contrary to Policy H15 of the UDP.
3) The maximum off-street parking spaces are unsatisfactorily sited as they can not be accessed safely from Sparsholt Road contrary to Policy H17 of the UDP.
4) The proposed extension to the rear is contrary to Policy H22 and Appendix 7 of the UDP as it is in excess of 3.65m deep and would result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers.
Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 46 Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 48 AGENDA ITEM 11 Plan: I DC/02/00593/FUL Eastbrook Ward (A)
Address: YMCA, Rush Green Road, Romford
Development: Amended Application: Proposed installation of 10 no. transmission dishes having a diameter of 0.3m and 0.6m along with the installation of an associated equipment cabinet
Applicant: Hutchison 3G UK Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is the 11 storey YMCA hostel building which is situated on the south side of Rush Green Road, Romford, close to Roneo Corner with the site straddling the Borough boundary with the London Borough of Havering. Abutting the site to the west are residential properties in Rush Green Road and Gorseway, whilst to the south and east is public open space, which is separated from the application site by the River Rom.
Planning permission was refused on 9 April 2002 for the installation of 12 microwave telecommunications dishes on the roof of the building and a copy of the officer’s report is attached as an appendix to this report.
The current application is a resubmission and seeks consent for the placement of 10 transmission dishes with a diameter of either 0.3m and 0.6m at various location on the roof of the building along with an equipment cabinet measuring 2.6m by 2.6m with a height of 2.8m. This would match the dimensions of an approved Orange cabinet located in the southern part of the rooftop.
Whilst most telecommunications equipment provide cellular coverage this is not the purpose of this proposal. The proposed equipment is required so as to act as a link sending and receiving signals between 10 different base stations in the surrounding area of Romford, Hornchurch, Ilford, Barking and Dagenham.
Background
Permission has already been granted in 1995, 1997 and 1998 for the erection of telecommunications equipment on the roof of the YMCA, including a 7.5 metre high monopole (TP/366/98).
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 34 adjoining residential properties were consulted and as a result 8 letters were received objecting to the proposal on the ground of health and safety (particularly in light of the number of children using the building and the adjacent playing fields), the impact of the development on property prices, that the development would be an eyesore and out of character to the surrounding area, that there is no assurance that ICNIRP standards will be complied with and that resident’s Human Rights may be infringed if consent is granted.
Page 49
b) The London Borough of Havering
Officer response received raising no objection to the proposal.
UDP Policy
Policy DE.45 (Appendix 17) Telecommunications
No policy Issue.
Analysis
Policy DE.45 states that the Council will normally grant permission for the installation of telecommunications equipment provided there is a need for the development and that the equipment installed is the smallest available. Policy also encourages the installation of equipment on the roofs of buildings over 15m in height provided there is no adverse effect on the skyline and that the developer shows that there is no reasonable possibility of sharing existing facilities.
The justification for this is that the Council accepts that modern telecommunications are an essential and beneficial element in the local community and the national economy. To this end, the Council recognises the need to facilitate the continued growth of telecommunications. It is accepted though that any telecommunications development should always seek to be of a minimal visual impact so as to ensure that the appearance of buildings, the townscape and the countryside do not suffer adverse visual intrusion.
Members are advised that at present approximately two thirds of the national population currently own and use a mobile phone. In light of this and on the grounds of the type of equipment to be installed, as explained earlier in this report, it is considered that there is a need for the proposed development and that it will assist in the creation of a modern and reliable telecommunications system.
In respect of the size of the equipment and its impact on the visual appearance of the building it is important to judge the development in light of the existing equipment already in situ and the height of the YMCA building. At present both One 2 One and Orange have already positioned a range of equipment including panel antennae, dishes and equipment cabinets on the rooftop. The highest part of this existing equipment is 42.8m above ground level, which is approximately 9m above the highest part of the proposed dishes, which would only have a diameter of 300mm and 600mm respectfully. Given this backdrop of existing equipment, the size of the equipment and the overall height of the YMCA it is considered that the visual impact of the proposed equipment would be minimal and would not appear as obtrusive or dominant in the local street scene.
As to the use of the YMCA there are a limited number of suitable tall buildings within the immediate area. The applicant did enquire about utilising other buildings notably North House on St. Edward’s Way and Lambourne House, but the owners of the properties were unwilling to accommodate Hutchison’s equipment. However, by using the YMCA the applicant is utilising an existing site, which is consistent with the requirements of policy DE.45.
Page 50
With regard to the objections raised on the grounds of health and safety Members are aware that Central Government commissioned the Stewart Report to investigate the possible public health risk associated with telecommunication base stations and hand held sets.
In the report’s summary and recommendation confirmation was given that in respect of exposure to radiation emissions:
“For base stations, exposures of the general population will be to the whole body, but normally at levels of intensity many times less than those from handsets.”
The report then confirms that whilst there is scientific evidence which suggests that there may be biological effects as a result of the above this does not mean that these effects lead to disease or injury. As a consequence whilst the report advises that a precautionary approach be followed until detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effect becomes available, it states that at present:
“We conclude that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines.”
In light of this, revised Government guidance in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (Telecommunications) was published in August 2001. This states that health considerations and public concern can, in principle, be a material consideration in determining applications for planning permission. In deciding what weight to attached to these concerns Local Authorities are advised to take into account the advice outlined within the Stewart Report.
PPG8 though also clearly states that it is the Governments view that provided the equipment installed meets the guidelines required by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), then Local Planning Authorities should not consider further health aspects and concerns about them.
Consequently as a matter of planning policy the Local Planning Authority should not generally give much weight to health concerns when considering applications for telecommunications equipment where the ICNIRP guidelines have been satisfied as is the case with this proposal. Subsequently whilst the objections raised are understandable, they cannot be supported when making a decision.
As to the impact of the proposal on property values, this is not considered to be a material consideration, which can be taken into consideration when making a decision. Even so due to the height of the building and the level and size of existing equipment on the roof the addition of 10 dishes 300mm and 600mm in diameter would not be particularly noticeable to potential purchasers.
The applicant has confirmed that the equipment will comply with the ICNIRP standards and it is normal procedure to attach a condition on any consent granted that the equipment always operates within these guidelines. As to the taking of regular readings to ensure that the equipment is operating within the specified guidelines, whilst in an ideal world this would be possible, due to the cost and the limited level of resources available to the Council it is unlikely that this can be achieved.
Page 51 With regard to the impact of the development on individuals Human Rights this is considered a separate issue outside the remit of the Planning Acts and cannot be considered as a material consideration.
Overall it is considered that because of the size of the dishes to be installed in relation to the existing equipment present and their location that the proposed development is acceptable and for the reasons outlined above the objections raised are not of sufficient weight to warrant refusal in this instance.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:
1. The mobile base station will operate in accordance with the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) RF exposure guidelines as expressed in the European Union Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields.
Page 52 Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 54 AGENDA ITEM 12 Plan: J DC/02/00389/FUL Whalebone Ward (A)
Address: 1-2 Tudor Parade, High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford
Development: Use of shop as betting office
Applicant: Mr K Kaya
Introduction and Description of Development
The application property is an end of terrace ground floor double retail unit in Tudor Parade, facing north onto the High Road. This parade consists of retail units on the ground floor with residential units on the two floors above.
The applicants propose to move premises from 7 Tudor Parade to this address and in doing so change the use of the double unit from Class A1 (retail) to Class A2 (Betting Office). It is proposed that the existing retail area of the unit will be used as the betting shop, with the rear of the premises being used for customer toilets and staff facilities.
Background
Planning permission was refused in June 2002 (DC/02/00074/FUL) for the conversion of this premises into a Class A3 (hot food establishment) use on the grounds that the conversion of the unit would undermine the vitality and viability of the shopping parade.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
A total of 10 letters and 3 petitions comprising 88, 44 and 22 signatures respectively were received in response to the public consultation exercise, objecting to the proposal. It was considered by many of the objectors that there are too many betting offices in the area and that the community would be better served by some form of youth centre at the site. The use of the property as a youth centre would help to give local young people opportunities to participate in positive activities at a local venue and not in anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood. Some objection was received on moral grounds, in the belief that gambling is an undesirable activity that can lead to personal problems and it should not be promoted. One objector stated that the site would be better served by a local retailer for the benefit of the older people in the area.
b) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection
No comments on this application. c) Director of Social Services – Access Officer
No comments received.
Page 55
UDP Policy
S5 Chadwell Heath
Policy issue in respect of non-retail use exceeding 30% of the designated shopping parade.
Analysis
Policy S5 of the Unitary Development Plan is designed to ensure that the Chadwell Heath shopping parade retains a full range of facilities on offer for the local community and remains attractive to shoppers. In that regard, Council policy seeks to restrict the number and size of non-retail outlets within separate parades to a specific maximum (30%) of the measured retail frontage. In this instance, the designated parade is 1-10 Tudor Parade and 34-38 High Road.
Currently, some 21 metres of the aforementioned frontage (25%) is in non-retail use. The conversion of this ground floor shop into an A2 use would add another 11 metres onto this figure, equating to just under 38.5% of the measured frontage. However, the applicants are prepares to enter into an agreement, following a commitment to grant planning consent, whereby they would relinquish the A2 use on the existing property at 7 Tudor Parade meaning that planning permission would be required for anything other than an A1 use at this address. Hence, no. 7 could then be considered as an A1 use should this application be approved, in which case the non-A1 usage in the parade would amount to 31% of the measured frontage. In other words this development would result in an approximately 1 metre excess in policy terms over the maximum figure stipulated by UDP policy.
Although Policy S5 does not specifically allow for exceptions to the maximum frontage policy because of the length of time a unit has been vacant, it is felt that vacancy periods are material consideration in planning applications of this type. In this instance, the applicants have gathered a substantial amount of information on the attempts to let this property since it became vacant in May 1997. In that time, expressions of interest in the unit have been few and far between despite the marketing efforts of two estate agents. Interest from ‘World Wide Furniture’ (1997), ‘Boots the Chemists’ (1998) and ‘Apollo Home Entertainment’ (1999) did not materialise, in the first two cases because of the differences in rental value against the retailers rental assessment. In addition, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham showed interest in the premises early in 2001 but this was halted because of a lack of funding on the Council’s part. Contributing to the lack of interest in the property has been the poor state of the building, which is in need of repair both to the frontage and more particularly at the rear of the property.
In respect of the matters raised in objection, the morality of betting offices is not a material planning consideration and moreover, the Planning Division cannot corroborate the view that betting offices would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour. Whilst there may be reasons and support for the provision of the Youth Centre in the area or indeed facilities for the benefit of the elderly, this should not have a bearing upon the consideration of this application, over and above any other change of the use in the area.
In conclusion, the applicants have put forward a strong case for UDP policy to be relaxed in this instance. By offering to forego A2 consent on 7 Tudor Parade for the remainder of their lease (until July 2011), the change of use effectively results in 31% of the frontage being in non-retail use. It is considered highly unlikely that this Page 56 property would not attract an A1 retail user in the next 8/9 years and, once a retail user has occupied the premises, planning permission will be required for the recommencement of any further non-retail use. Whilst this is slightly in excess of policy requirements, it represents only around 1 metre of the designated frontage. Hence, in order to recommend a refusal it would be necessary to justify that this 1 metre of retail frontage would harm the vitality and viability of this parade and the Chadwell Heath shopping centre in general. In that regard, it is not felt that a 1 metre frontage represents significant justification to refuse, particularly as the applicants are proposing to bring back into use a large and prominent unit which has been left in a state of disrepair and is doing little to retain the visual appearance of the parade.
On appeal the Planning Inspectorate have tended to take a flexible view to this policy and it is considered that 31% represents a very minor breach which broadly meets the requirements of the policy and that to cap the non-retail frontage at the existing 25% may be considered unreasonable.
Recommendation
That, subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 preventing the use of 7 Tudor Parade for A2 purposes during the period up to 7 July 2011, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. M2 Hours of Retail 7am to 11pm
2. N1 Details of Sound Insulation
Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 58 Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 60 AGENDA ITEM 13 Plan: K DC/02/00485/FUL Eastbury Ward (R)
Address: Sub-station/land to the rear of 3-9 Lambourne Gardens, Barking
Development: Erection of two storey building to be used as day nursery together with external play areas for nursery and community
Applicant: Chancery Assets
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprises an electricity sub-station and an area of open land adjacent to the railway and to the rear of 3-9 Lambourne Gardens. A public footpath runs along the northern boundary of the site connecting Upney Lane with Lambourne Road. The site lies at the rear of residential units in the form of two storey terraced properties and a three storey block of flats. There are a couple of large trees on this site.
The application proposes the demolition of the existing sub-station and the erection of a two storey building to be used as a day nursery for up to 60 2-5 year olds. The building is designed to present a standard two storey aspect to the northern elevation with the southern element having a sloping copper sheeting cladded roof frontage facing the rear of those dwellings on Lambourne Gardens. This design is achieved by providing a mezzanine rather than a full first floor level. In addition to the nursery building, which is located to the western portion of the site, the applicants have proposed a play area, enclosed by the continuation of the northern wall to the one side and open to the rest, to the east of which is a ‘community external play area’ with an activity climbing space, for the benefit of the local community. Lambourne Gardens possesses restricted parking bays and the applicants have proposed the installation of a possible four new parking bays in association with the nursery at the entrance to the road.
Background
None.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
A total of 20 letters of objection were received in response to the public consultation exercise. The prime concern raised was that the development would heighten the already bad traffic problems within the vicinity of Lambourne Gardens giving rise to additional parking pressures and posing general road safety issues. Concern was also raised as to the amount of noise and disturbance that would be associated with a nursery activity, not only through the parents and their children but also through other unsociable members of the public who may use the area for anti-social activities. Additionally, residents raised concern that the development would be visually intrusive, result in a loss of light to garden areas and was situated too close to the railway to be safe for large groups of young children. One objector stated that an open area used as a play area by children would be lost to residents.
Page 61
b) Traffic and Road Safety Section
The application is not acceptable in principle and the development requires a staff parking space and a turning circle within the site.
c) Director of Social Services - Children and Families Division
No response.
UDP Policy
C2 Premises for Facilities for the Community
Policy issue in respect of the potential adverse impact of the development upon neighbouring occupiers and the lack of parking provision on the site.
Analysis
Despite requests from the Planning Division, the applicants have not furnished the Council with details of the hours of operation of this facility and the numbers of staff employed at the nursery and the report is written with this in mind.
Policy C2 of the Unitary Development Plan holds a presumption in favour of the provision of new community services which bring benefit to the Borough and its residents. As evidenced in other applications for new day care nurseries (e.g. 142 Longbridge Road – DC/01/00418/FUL) there is a shortfall of full day care provision in the Borough and all the current providers have waiting lists. Accordingly, there is a requirement within the Borough for a facility of this type and this development would go some way to fulfilling this identified need.
Irrespective of the above however, it is essential that such a facility is integrated into its local surroundings and does not undermine the amenity of the surrounding occupiers and in that regard there are a number of apparent concerns.
In proposing a 60 place nursery there is little doubt that there will be a demonstrable impact upon the immediate environment. Given the ages of the children involved it is likely that parents will wish to drop their children off as close as possible to the nursery entrance. Hence, there is great potential for a large number of vehicles visiting the area during the morning rush hour in particular. Without any designated parking areas and Lambourne Gardens being a narrow cul-de-sac with restricted parking bays, the effect of all this additional traffic accessing the site is likely to cause numerous problems not only for local residents but also for those visiting the site. The fact that Upney Lane train station is close to the site should have some mitigating factor on the numbers of people accessing the site by motor vehicle but the volume of traffic still created will likely be out of proportion to the existing traffic movements in the vicinity.
In addition, the applicants have not provided any parking spaces for the benefit of the employees at the site, which is likely to number in excess of 10 staff, contrary to the requirements of the Interim Parking Standards which stipulate 2 parking spaces per 3 members of staff. The applicants do propose on one of their drawings four ‘possible bays’ on Lambourne Gardens adjacent to the junction with Lambourne Road which could be used in association with the nursery. Irrespective of whether the bays would be acceptable in traffic terms, they are located approximately 90 metres away from the proposed entrance to the nursery and are therefore not Page 62 considered to be a viable and convenient option. Parents would still be likely to attempt to get as close to the nursery entrance as possible and the traffic problems would not be solved.
The proposed building will be sited between 10 and 12 metres from the back walls of 3-5 Lambourne Gardens. In order to minimise the impact on the adjoining dwellings the applicants have developed a design solution which will mean that the occupiers of these dwellings will be presented with a copper sheeted roof span which elevates the further away from the adjoining properties that it goes. However, at its lowest point the structure will be some 5 metres and even though there would not be any loss of light to the adjoining buildings the size and scale of the building will be unduly prominent from the rear, leading to a sense of enclosure particularly in the confined rear garden areas.
In respect of the other objections raised by neighbours, it is not considered that the development would necessarily attract unsociable behaviour in the vicinity and indeed may act as a disincentive to do so given the added overlooking afforded by the development. The proximity of the nursery to the railway line should not pose any specific safety problems for the children attending the premises as there is adequate boundary treatment around the site and the children will be under supervision. The loss of the green area is noted as is the loss of the trees on site, however, it is questionable whether the open area is really an appropriate and safe environment for young children, particularly given its secluded position and the community play area will retain an element of play space for the local children.
In conclusion, whilst it is accepted that there is a need for such a facility within the Borough, the size of the nursery and its location will likely have a significant and detrimental impact on the surrounding neighbours.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed nursery due to its size, location and lack of adequate parking provision would likely have a serious and adverse effect on the amenities enjoyed by local residents, by reason of noise, disturbance and general vehicular activity within the vicinity of the site, contrary to Policy C2 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Interim Parking Standards.
2. The proposed development by reason of its overall height, size and proximity to neighbouring dwellings would have an adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, by reason of a loss of outlook and sense of enclosure, contrary to Policy C2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 64 Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 66 AGENDA ITEM 14 Plan: M DC/02/00563/FUL Longbridge Ward (A)
Address: 14 Beccles Drive, Barking
Development: Erection of part single, part two storey side/rear extension to an existing care home
Applicant: Mr and Mrs Hoad
Introduction and Description of Development
The application premises comprise a semi-detached two-storey dwelling on the south side of Beccles Drive close to the junction with Melford Avenue. The property has had a number of additions including a single storey rear extension, a detached side garage with additional parking spaces in front, and a recently approved (1999) single storey side extension to provide additional living space for use as a three bedroom care home.
This application relates to further extensions to the dwelling including a two storey side and rear extension and a single storey extension to the western boundary replacing the existing garage. This constitutes an additional 114.65 m2 of floor space.
The site is approximately 480m2 in area. The total footprint area of the existing home and the proposed extension would total approximately 154 m2.
Background
The use of the property as a care home came to the attention of the Council on the 15 July 1999 when the applicant requested an informal opinion on whether planning permission would be granted for the erection of a single storey side extension at the premises. Following correspondence informing the applicant that planning permission had not been granted for the existing use of the property, an application was submitted and approved on 13 December 1999. Consultations on this application included many objections from the immediate neighbours and surrounding residents, however it was considered that the development complied with all UDP policies and residents concerns were not sufficient to warrant the refusal of planning permission.
The applicant wishes to increase the size of the dwelling in order to increase the capacity of the existing care home from three bedrooms to seven to meet demand for care accommodation in the community most recently from social services at both Barking and Dagenham and Newham councils.
At present there are four residents who have moderate to severe learning difficulties. Four part-time staff including two carers, a cleaner and a gardener support a full-time care manager. Most of these people live locally and two drive cars to work. There are currently visitors once or twice a week.
With the increased capacity and additional residents the number of care staff may increase to 6 owing to the need to employ additional carers for the new residents. Visitor numbers are also likely to increase, however accurate numbers cannot be obtained.
The initial submission contained plans showing a significantly larger side extension in a two-storey block form. The applicant was requested to reduce the bulk of the Page 67 development by setting back the first floor side extension and aligning the extensions to be more sympathetic to the form of the original building. Current plans show reduction in the volume and footprint area of extensions.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
The owners/occupiers of 12 surrounding properties submitted verbal and written responses to Planning Services. Details of the application were advertised in accordance with Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.
A petition with 45 signatures has also been submitted in opposition to the development as part of a document submitted by Gill Solicitors on behalf of nine residents.
The following planning related objections were submitted by residents:
Use as a care home (business) not compatible with a residential neighbourhood Proposal would lead to a loss of residential amenity for adjoining and some surrounding properties, specifically: - increased domestic noise levels; - increased lighting for car park area; - increased traffic with additional residents and staff (potential for accidents); - overlooking and overshadowing of immediate neighbours; - exacerbation of existing on-street car parking problems on Beccles Drive; and - human, material and hazardous waste “strewn across the front side elevation” is a nuisance in terms of visual impact and smell and this proposal will exacerbate the problem. Scale of development is not in keeping with the residential character of the Leftley Estate Approval of such a development would set a precedent for future house extensions Development would be too close to window on flank wall of garage at 12 Beccles Drive Inadequate off-street car parking for increased number of staff and visitors.
Other issues which are primarily non-planning matters or which are to be dealt with under other legislation:
Some residents were not informed of initial change of use to care home Private property deeds for Leftley Estate prohibit use of dwelling for a business Care home would have adverse impact on property values Increase in domestic noise levels from residents with “abnormal behavioural traits” Concern over the “kind of people coming and going” from the care home Potential subsidence problems with adjoining properties may also be impacting the application site Concern over what “type” of care home it may become in future Inadequate capacity of existing sewerage/drainage system to cope with additional showers/toilets for residents Previous illegal use of site as a care home “not in the spirit of the law” Overshadowing of rear habitable rooms at 16 Beccles Drive not in keeping with Ancient Law of Light. Enlarged refuse area could attract rats Page 68 Character of the area does not meet with the ambience required of a care home Clients placed in the care home are from outside the Borough
Two letters were received from relatives of current residents stating that care home residents are happy and comfortable and able to lead normal lives.
b) National Care Standards Commission
Inspectors have reviewed plans for the proposed extensions and state that additional rooms comply with standard space requirements. No issues were raised.
c) Access Officer
Applicant to create level access into the garden.
UDP Policy
H.7 Special Needs Housing H.17 Car Parking H.22 Extensions and Alterations – Appendix 7
Policy issue: building is not detached.
Analysis
The proposed extensions comply with the UDP policy for domestic extensions and in planning terms would not adversely impact adjoining properties.
Policy H.7 states that proposals for residential care homes will normally be approved subject to meeting a number of criteria. Firstly, there should be an identified need which, in this case, stems from a national social policy objective of achieving rehabilitation in the community as opposed to institutional care. The policy also requires that the use should have no significant adverse environmental effects on surrounding properties or the character of the locality and should normally be accommodated in a detached house. Whilst the application property is semi- detached, an exception to the policy has already been made when initially granting permission for the care home and it is recognised that there is a limited stock of detached dwellings in the Borough. In this instance it is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity, as the scale of the proposal is considered to be compatible with the character of the area.
It is apparent that the use of the site is the primary concern amongst neighbouring residents. Most regard a “business” use as being inappropriate within a residential setting. From a street perspective the existing care home resembles a typical home and the applicants have provided information that suggests it is operated as such, with support staff there to assist with the various difficulties the residents may have.
Several residents have raised concerns over the size of the extended dwelling and have stated that it constitutes overdevelopment. Although this is a considerable extension of volume, given the large size of the plot and the building’s orientation in relation to neighbouring properties, it is possible to avoid overlooking and overshadowing, and maintain sufficient private amenity space. The major part of the proposal is a two storey side and rear extension similar to many others which have been approved on the estate. The addition of the single storey lounge extension is slightly unusual, but due to the layout of the premises at an angle does not project Page 69 more than 3.65m beyond the rear of the adjoining premises. At the Council’s request, the applicant has amended the proposal in order to reduce the bulk of the development, maintain the openness of the plot and minimise the apparent façade width of the building. The proposed number of rooms has also been reduced from nine bedrooms to seven. In addition, the fact that the application site is located on a curve in the road prevents a potential terracing effect that would result if the property were located on a straight road.
A number of residents’ concerns have been in relation to loss of residential amenity, in particular noise and visual impacts. The care home has been in operation for over 4 years, during that time no complaints were received from adjoining occupiers through Social Services concerning noise or loss of residential amenity. It was not until the submission of the application in 1999 to extend the dwelling and regularise the use, that adjoining residents voiced complaints.
Residents have also raised the issue of waste generation and are concerned additional residents would exacerbate current problems where human, material and hazardous waste is “strewn across the front side elevation”. The applicant has provided a vented refuse area as part of this proposal. This is considered to be sufficient.
There have also been complaints about the “type” of people likely to occupy the care home at present and in the future. This is not a planning issue which can be taken into account. However, any change in the category of people cared for would have to go through a three month re-registration with the Social Services Department to establish whether the property and the people in control are capable of providing the required level of service before any decision is made. Members are also advised that a condition could be attached to any planning permission granted restricting the use to that applied for and for no other purpose within Class C2 (residential institutions).
Car parking requirements have been met by the applicant. Policy H.17 (Appendix 6.1) states that for Special Needs Housing one car parking space should be provided for every four bedspaces plus one space per two full time equivalent staff. The proposed development would have seven bedrooms and six staff (five of which are part-time). At any one time during the day there will be three to four care staff and at night up to two. This is equivalent to three full time staff, which would constitute two spaces. Therefore, a total of 4 spaces should be provided.
With a doubling of current residents and staff numbers for the care home, there would be an increase in vehicular movements from both visitors and care staff. The applicant has indicated that only 2 staff currently drive to work and others either walk or cycle. Together with the current visitor numbers provided it is therefore considered that adequate off-street parking has been provided for future parking needs.
Although the proposed stack parking arrangement is not desirable, it is thought that given the staggered nature of staff and visitor attendance, incidences of blocking would be minimal. The lighting required to illuminate the proposed car parking area has also attracted concerns, namely from residents on the opposite side of Beccles Drive. However, there is no indication on the application that additional lighting is proposed to this area.
Residents have also suggested that existing on-street car parking problems may be exacerbated by the increase in traffic. At present some residents and visitors to the care home park on a blind curve outside 14 and 16 Beccles Drive, allegedly to avoid Page 70 permit parking at a nearby controlled parking zone. Although this parking is unsatisfactory, it is not illegal and given that the level of traffic movements in this neighbourhood street, accidents and traffic congestion are unlikely.
Various other objections have been submitted regarding issues not related to planning matters. These have been outlined in the Consultation section of this report and mostly relate to private property rights, housing value, building control regulations and other minor matters. They are considered to have little or no weight in the determination of this application.
Overall, it is considered that, whilst the property is semi-detached, an exception can be made to Policy H7 in this case as the development would not significantly impact residential amenity and neighbourhood character. This matter was considered as part of the original application when consent for the change of use was approved.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. H.2 Restriction to one purpose (adults with learning disabilities)
2. Q.3 Matching facing materials
3. I.6 Car Parking
Page 71 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 72 Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 74 AGENDA ITEM 15 Plan: N DC/02/00712/FUL Longbridge Ward (R)
Address: 74 Shirley Gardens
Development: Demolition of garage and erection of two storey two bedroom house
Applicant: Mr Fida Muhammad
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprises an end of terrace two storey dwellinghouse on the south western side of Shirley Gardens with an existing part width single storey rear extension and garage to the side.
The application proposes the demolition of the existing garage and its replacement with a two storey two bedroom house. The extension will continue the existing front building line of the property and extend the depth of the host dwelling, with a 2.9 metre full width ground floor extension and it will abut the boundary with 72 Shirley Gardens. The building will finished with a pitched roof to match the existing and be afforded an area of private amenity space at the rear.
Background
None.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
In response to the public consultation exercise a total of three letters of objection were received, one of which comprised 9 signatures. Concerns raised were that the development would undermine the character of the estate through its design, by adjoining a shared boundary and it would also set an unfortunate precedent. It was also stated that the proposal would add to parking problems in the area and cause loss of light to the opposite side of the road. Objection was further received in regard to the noise and disturbance resulting from construction and the thought that the new house would undermine local property prices.
UDP Policy
H13 – H17 New Residential Development H22 Alterations and Extensions
Policy issue in respect of the terracing effect.
Analysis
This application proposes the construction of a new dwelling and in many regards the development accords with the requirements of the Unitary Development Plan. The total habitable floor area provided by this development amounts to 51.1 square metres, exceeding by 10 square metres that required by Policy H16 of the UDP. To the rear of the development an area of garden space shown amounts to approximately 83 square metres, easily more than the 50 square metres required. Page 75 Additionally, the development does afford minimum clearance off the footway to allow the parking of one vehicle in front of the proposed dwelling and one in front of the existing, hence satisfying the Council’s Interim Parking Standards in relation to off-street parking.
As well as providing quality accommodation it is imperative that proposed new dwellings integrate with their surroundings and do not detract from the overall character of the area. In many respects the applicants have attempted to make this proposal accord with the surrounding terrace by continuing the roof line of the host terrace and incorporating a frontage which replicates the existing houses, note, the arched porch entrance and the placement and proportion of the front windows. Moreover, the development will not have any significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in terms of light loss or overlooking.
Notwithstanding the above however, the development does fall short of UDP policy by carrying the first floor of the house up to the boundary with 70 Shirley Gardens. Appendix 7 of the UDP specifically states that the two storey element of any side extension should normally be set at least one metre off the boundary. Recent additions to the policy, as approved by the Development Control Board on 6 August 2002, allow policy exceptions where the two storey element is set back from the front wall age by 2 metres or a ‘chalet style’ extension is proposed. This extension does none of the above and therefore contradicts UDP policy which seeks to retain the spaces between separate dwellings and avoid the street scene being enclosed by continuous terracing. It is noted that there are a number of other two storey side extensions within the vicinity which do adjoin the boundary, for instance, at 83 and 88 Shirley Gardens, however, these were approved prior to the adopted UDP and do not undermine the case for a refusal in this case, as the Planning Division does not wish to see the street scene deteriorate any further.
As regards other comments raised in objection, it is appreciated that some disruption will occur when new development takes place but there are Environmental Health standards in place and planning conditions that can be attached to minimise any construction disturbance. Whether this proposal would affect local property value is not considered to be a material planning consideration.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed development is contrary to policy H.22 (Appendix 7) of the Council Unitary Development Plan as it would result in the first floor of the two-storey side extension abutting the boundary of No. 70 Shirley Gardens, which could lead to a terracing effect detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.
Page 76 Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 78 AGENDA ITEM 16 Plan: O 02/00708/FUL Thames Ward (A)
Address: London Works, Ripple Road, Barking
Development: Erection of replacement warehouse building and erection of two buildings in connection with builder’s merchants
Applicant: Ravenbourne Developments Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is approximately 1.8ha in size and situated on the south side of Ripple Road, a dual carriage way section of the A13. The site faces directly onto the approach road for the Lodge Avenue flyover and roundabout, whilst to the east is Map Plant, to the west Poultons and to the south Storaenso – London Terminal, which is accessed via a slip road running between Map Plant and the application site. The site is also bounded along its southern and part of its eastern and western boundary by a designated nature conservation area in the form of a watercourse ditch.
The application site is currently occupied by Eastwoods, who presently utilise only a third of the site with the remainder vacant. Planning permission was sought in January 2002 for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide 6 industrial/storage units of which one would be a purpose built unit for Eastwoods (DC/02/00046/FUL). This proposal was presented to the Development Control Board on 11 June 2002 where Members were mindful to approve planning permission subject to the successful signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of the dedication of a strip of land at the front of the site to be used for highway purposes and the relocation of the A13 Artscape Fence. This agreement has recently been signed with the formal decision notice issued on 26 September 2002. A copy of the report presented to Members is enclosed as an appendix to this report.
The current proposal also seeks consent for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. This would see the purpose built unit for Eastwoods as approved under the previous consent remain, whilst the remainder of the site would be redeveloped for a builders merchant.
The proposed builder’s merchants would be split into two buildings with a total floor space of 6035m2. Building A would be set 16m away from the A13 and measure 41.8m by 72.5m, whilst building B would be set at a right angle to Building A so that it would be partially screened from the A13 by the Eastwoods building and measure 31.8m by 56.3m. Both buildings would be steel framed construction with an external height of approximately 11m. Externally they would be finished in composite panels and profiled metal cladding with a horizontal orange/black feature band running around both buildings approximately 5m from ground level.
Building A would be trade access only and used for the display of smaller products such as tools, paint etc, with a trade counter for the purchase of all goods and the on site ordering of bulky goods such as timber, glass etc. These goods would be situated in building B where there would be no access for purchasers. This building would include facilities for the cutting of glass, board saw for plasterboard etc. and ancillary plant. Building B would also take external telephone orders, which could be either picked up on site or delivered.
Page 79 A designated pick up point between building A and B would be provided where goods/materials ordered from building B could be to be collected. This area would be separated and secured from the main car parking area with a set of sliding gates and be partially covered by a canopy. Access to this area would be restricted to employees and clients picking up goods.
In addition to this pick up area, the site would provide 61 designated parking spaces with an additional 5% for disabled drivers and passengers.
The development would be carried out in two phases. Phase 1 would result in part of the existing Eastwood building being demolished so as to allow the new Eastwood unit, as approved under decision notice DC/02/00046/FUL to be erected. Once this was completed the remainder of the existing building would be demolished so that work on building A and B could be started.
The units are being purpose built for Saint-Gobain, who are Europe’s leading building merchants. They currently own brands such as Jewsons within the UK, but this site would be only the second of their ‘Platform’ brand sites within the country. All customers would be restricted to the trade via a Membership scheme, with each member issued a swipe card to gain access into building A.
As with the previous application the main entrance into the site from Ripple Road would be relocated from its present position in the north east corner to a more central point. Transport for London would also retain the small section of land that it acquired to the front of the site for highway improvement works. This would mean that the Artscape fence, which is currently in situ along the front of the site, would have to be relocated as was required under the previous application.
Background
Planning permission was initially granted in 1949 for the development and use of the site as an excavation contractors business and builders’ merchants yard (BAR/200/49). Permission was then granted in 1980 for the current buildings on the site, which involved the redevelopment of the site to provide industrial and warehouse buildings with ancillary office accommodation (TP/261/81).
In 1994 planning permission was granted for the erection of a 24m high lattice telecommunication mast with equipment cabinet in the south west corner of the site (TP/47/94). Prior approval consent was subsequently granted in 2001 for the installation of an additional 6 antennas on the existing mast and for an extension to the existing equipment cabinet (DC/01/00002/PRIOR). As a result of this proposal the applicants are proposing to retain the mast although it would need to be relocated and the applicant has been made aware that a separate application would be required in respect of this.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 3 adjoining industrial units and the 13 residential units situated on the opposite side of Ripple Road were consulted, but no response was received.
Page 80
b) Environment Agency
No comments made.
c) English Heritage – Archaeological
No comments made.
d) Transport for London
No objection to this application. The proposal includes the footway widening along the Ripple Road frontage and standard of vehicle access that were agreed with Transport for London following receipt of the previous planning application earlier this year.
e) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection Team
Request standard condition M4 be attached to any consent granted.
f) Access Officer
Various comments made about the accessibility of the proposed development.
g) London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority – Safety
The brigade is satisfied with the proposals. h) London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority – Water
An additional fire hydrant is required within the site so as to adequately cover the potential fire risks.
i) Essex and Suffolk Water Company
No comments made.
j) Thames Water
No comments made.
UDP Policy
E.1 Employment Development within Employment Areas BR.9 A13 and River Road – Landscape Improvements G.42 Protected Sites G.43 Development Adjacent to Nature Conservation Areas Interim Parking Standards – January 2002
Policy Issue - Location of development in relation to designated nature conservation areas and level of site car parking.
Page 81
Analysis
The proposed development complies with the requirements of policy E.1 in respect of the type of development to be located on the site and in terms of its scale, massing and siting. However, it is considered that the elevational appearance of building A as it faces onto the A13 is rather bland and uninspiring. Whilst in an ideal situated this matter would be resolved before presenting the application to Members, due to the increased pressure to determine applications within a fixed period of time and that the principle of the proposal is acceptable it is considered that this issue can be suitably resolved with the imposition of a condition on any consent granted.
Although no response has been received Members will recall that when the application was previously considered the Environment Agency objected to the proposal due to its impact on the watercourse running along the southern and eastern boundary of the site. Whilst under the previous proposal the distance between the rear wall of units 2-5 and the watercourse running along the southern boundary of the site would have been a minimum of 2.75m, as a result of the current proposal the distance would be on average 25m away.
With regard to the watercourse running down the eastern boundary of the site, under application DC/02/00046/FUL unit 5 would have been within 8m of the site boundary and as a result 2.75 from the watercourse. However, under the current proposal the distance between building B and the watercourse would be 9m so as to allow an access road to the rear of the site for delivery vehicles. In addition to this the applicant would extend the length of the watercourse to 78m as outlined under the previous application. As a result of this it is not considered that the development would have any significant impact on the nature conservation area and, indeed, should result in a significant improvement.
The comments made by the Council’s Access Officer, Environmental Protection Team and the Water Section of the Fire Brigade are noted. The applicant has also agreed to re-enter into the Section 106 Agreement, which was part of the original application so as to secure the relocation of the A13 Artscape fence and the land required for highway improvement works by the Transport for London
Overall the proposed development is considered acceptable and would result in the successful redevelopment of an underused and partially vacant site, whilst at the same time having no serious impact on the surrounding nature conservation area.
Recommendation
That subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of proposed highway works and the relocation of the A13 Artscape fence that planning permission be granted
1. F.1 Details of Soft Landscaping
2. F.2 Implementation of Proposed Soft Landscaping
3. F.4 Details of Hard Landscaping
4. I.4 Vehicular Access (Commercial)
5. I.6 Completion of Parking Areas
Page 82 6. I.7 Use of Parking Areas
7. I.11 Cycle Parking
8. M.4 Hours of Construction Work
9. O.1 Details of Dustbin Enclosures
10. P.1 Details of Boundary Treatment
11. R.1 Ramped Access
12. R.2 Disabled Driver and Passenger Bays
13. U.1 Land Contamination
14. Prior to the occupation of buildings A and B all refuse located within the watercourses shall be removed.
15. The development shall not be commenced until details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the extension to the watercourse running along the eastern boundary of the site. Buildings A and B and the purpose built Eastwood unit shall not be occupied until the approved works have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be maintained unless written confirmation is otherwise received.
16. L.1 Open Storage
17 Prior to the commencement of construction work on buildings A and B revised details as to the elevational appearance of building A shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 84 Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 86 AGENDA ITEM 17 Plan: P DC/02/00316/FUL Chadwell Heath Ward (A)
Address: Oriel House (also known as New Enterprise House) 149-151 High Road Chadwell Heath
Development: Installation of telecommunications equipment on roof
Applicant: Hutchison 3G UK Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is Oriel House a 7 storey office block approximately 25m high situated on the east side of Mill Lane at the junction with High Road. To the west is the Cedars Club and Sainsbury car park, to the south The White Horse Public House with residential properties in Mill Lane and Tenby Close to the north and east.
This proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of:
1. Three 1.7m high antennas mounted on poles to be situated in the north eastern, north western and south eastern corners of the building.
2. 4 transmission dishes 3 of which three will have a diameter of 600mm and one a diameter of 300mm. One of the dishes would be situated on the western side of the building another one on the southern side with the retaining two mounted on their own pole in the north eastern corner.
3. An associated equipment cabinet measuring 1800mm by 900mm with a height of 1300mm.
Background
Planning permission was granted in 2000 for the replacement of existing telecommunication cabinets and cabin on the roof under decision notice DC/00/00064/FUL. Prior Approval consent has also been granted in 2000 under decision notice DC/00/00042/PRIOR for the erection of 3 cross polar antennas, 3 dishes and associated equipment cabinet and in 2001 for the erection of 6 panel antennas and equipment cabin on the roof under decision notice DC/01/00156/PRIOR.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 47 adjoining residential and commercial properties were consulted directly and as a result 9 letters of objection were received. In addition to this a letter was received from Cllr Justice on 7 June 2002 with a further 53 objections from residents living in the surrounding area. The objections raised related to concerns over health and safety, the impact on audio and TV reception in the area and the visual appearance of the equipment to be installed.
Page 87
UDP Policy
DE.45 (appendix 17) Telecommunications
No policy issue.
Analysis
Policy DE.45 states that the Council will normally grant permission for the installation of telecommunications equipment provided there is a need for the development and that the equipment installed is the smallest available. Policy also encourages the installation of equipment on the roofs of buildings over 15m in height provided there is no adverse effect on the skyline and that the developer shows that there is no reasonable possibility of sharing existing facilities.
The justification for this is that the Council accepts that modern telecommunications are an essential and beneficial element in the local community and the national economy. To this end, the Council recognises the need to facilitate the continued growth of telecommunications. It is accepted though that any telecommunications development should always seek to be of a minimal visual impact so as to ensure that the appearance of buildings, the townscape and the countryside do not suffer adverse visual intrusion.
Members are advised that at present approximately two thirds of the national population currently own and use a mobile phone. In light of this it is considered that there is a need for the proposed development and that it will assist in the creation of a modern and reliable telecommunications system.
In respect of the size of the equipment and its impact on the visual appearance of the building it is important to judge the development in light of the existing equipment already in situ and the height of Oriel House. At present both One 2 One, BT Cellnet (now known as O2) and Orange have already positioned a range of equipment including panel antennae, dishes and equipment cabinets on the rooftop. Given the backdrop of existing equipment, the size of the proposed equipment and the overall height of Oriel House it is considered that the visual impact of the proposed equipment would be minimal and would not appear as obtrusive or dominant in the local street scene.
As to the use of Oriel House there are a limited number of suitable tall buildings within the immediate area. The applicant did enquire about utilising other buildings/sites, notably Knights Court and Dairy Crest in Freshwater Road, but due to technical reason or the unwillingness of the owners of the properties to accommodate Hutchison’s equipment these were unavailable. However, by using the roof top of Oriel House the applicant is utilising an existing site, which is consistent with the requirements of policy DE.45.
With regard to the objections raised on the grounds of health and safety Members are aware that Central Government commissioned the Stewart Report to investigate the possible public health risk associated with telecommunication base stations and hand held sets.
In the report’s summary and recommendation confirmation was given that in respect of exposure to radiation emissions:
Page 88 “For base stations, exposures of the general population will be to the whole body, but normally at levels of intensity many times less than those from handsets.”
The report then confirms that whilst there is scientific evidence which suggests that there may be biological effects as a result of the above this does not mean that these effects lead to disease or injury. As a consequence whilst the report advises that a precautionary approach be followed until detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effect becomes available, it states that at present:
“We conclude that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines.”
In light of this, revised Government guidance in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (Telecommunications) was published in August 2001. This states that health considerations and public concern can, in principle, be a material consideration in determining applications for planning permission. In deciding what weight to attached to these concerns Local Authorities are advised to take into account the advice outlined within the Stewart Report.
PPG8 though also clearly states that it is the Government’s view that provided the equipment installed meets the guidelines required by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), then Local Planning Authorities should not consider further health aspects and concerns about them.
Consequently as a matter of planning policy the Local Planning Authority should not generally give much weight to health concerns when considering applications for telecommunications equipment where the ICNIRP guidelines have been satisfied as is the case with this proposal. Subsequently whilst the objections raised are understandable, they cannot be supported when making a decision.
With regard to the impact of the proposed development on TV reception on visiting 15 Tenby Close it was noted that there were problems even though they had two TV aerials. On inspection of the remaining properties in the street it was noted that most dwellings had two aerials. Whilst there is no doubt that the TV reception in the road is below the standards normally expected the issue at question is whether this is as a result of the existing equipment situated on the top of Oriel House and whether this would deteriorate further as a consequence of additional equipment being installed.
PPG8 (Telecommunications) states that radio interference is a material consideration when determining any application and that there are essentially two types of interference. The first type is electromagnetic interference, caused by a radio transmitter or by unwanted signals emitted by other electrical equipment. The second type is due to physical interference, where large, prominent structures such as tower blocks can cause widespread disruption to analogue television. With regard to electromagnetic interference PPG8 then goes onto clarify that:
“Only if there is clear evidence that significant electromagnetic interference will arise, or will probably arise, and that no practicable remedy is available, will there generally be any justification for taking it into account in determining a planning application.”
Page 89
The distance between Oriel House and the main rear wall of the nearest property in Tenby Close is approximately 27m, whilst the height of Oriel House as already stated is approximately 25m. From inspection of the letters received Members are advised that it appears the problems associated with TV reception initially began when refurbishment work was carried out on Oriel House, which included the installation of aluminium sheet cladding fixed to the outer walls before being covered over.
Due to the concerns raised by residents the Radiocommunications Agency were contacted for further advice. They confirmed that they had not received any complaints from residents in the immediate vicinity of Oriel House due to poor TV reception. They also confirmed that the most likely reason for the current problems was due to ‘ghosting’ caused by the height of Oriel House and its close proximity to residential properties.
The applicant’s agent has also confirmed that the frequency used by third generation telecommunications equipment is between 2110.3 to 2124.9 MHz, whilst television transmissions operate between 400MHz and 869MHZ. Consequently the frequencies used are quite different and are at opposite ends of the electromagnetic spectrum with more than 1.5 GigaHertz of bandwidth between the two.
In light of this and on the balance of evidence available it is considered more than likely that it is Oriel House itself, which is causing the interference with the TV reception rather than the existing telecommunications equipment situated on the roof and that the proposed equipment is unlikely to have any impact itself. Consequently the objections raised on the grounds that the development would have a detrimental impact on TV reception cannot be supported.
Overall it is considered that because of the size of the dishes to be installed in relation to the existing equipment present and their location that the proposed development is acceptable and for the reasons outlined above the objections raised are not of sufficient weight to warrant refusal in this instance.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:
1. The mobile base station will operate in accordance with the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) RF exposure guidelines as expressed in the European Union Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields.
Page 90 Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 92 AGENDA ITEM 18 Plan: Q DC/02/00652/FUL Becontree Ward (R)
Address: 953 Longbridge Road, Dagenham
Development: Continuance of use of house as two flats, and erection of single storey rear extension
Applicant: Mr Malik
Introduction and Description of Development
The application property is a semi-detached house facing south onto Longbridge Road. The pair of houses are located close to the busy junction of Bennetts Castle Lane. The application relates to the conversion of the house into two flats, along with a single storey rear extension on the ground floor. This application was submitted following an enforcement investigation as the dwelling is currently being used as two separate flats. The house already has an existing two storey side extension, granted permission while the property was in the London Borough of Redbridge. (90/01149/REDHAV). The existing plans show a three bedroom flat on both the ground and the first floor. The proposed ground floor plans show a rear extension that would increase the size of two of the bedrooms, provide one en-suite bathroom and extend the kitchen/dining room. This extension is 3m deep, 11.2m wide and 2.85m high with a flat roof. In order to satisfy habitable floor space standards for the first floor flat amended plans were requested and this flat has now been changed to a two bedroom dwelling. One of the bedrooms has been changed to a lounge area. Three parking spaces have been shown in the front garden with access from an existing zebra crossing.
Background
This matter was brought to the attention of the Council following a neighbour complaint.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers.
Comments were received from an adjoining neighbour who had concerns regarding the occupants of the flats, the finance required for the development and the noise generated late at night when previous work has been carried out. b) Traffic and Road Safety.
Comments were received, requesting 4 off-street parking spaces and a single width ramped crossing next to the boundary of number 955 Longbridge Road.
c) Department of Housing and Health- Environmental Protection.
No comments.
Page 93
UDP Policy
H10 Conversions H15 Residential Amenity H16 Internal Design
Policy issues in respect of a shortfall in residential amenity space and habitable floor space.
Analysis
UDP policy states that all new flats created through a conversion should provide the relevant minimum habitable floor space and garden space. A three bedroom dwelling should provide 49 square metres of habitable floor space and 60 square metres of garden space.
The ground floor flat is proposed to be extended and therefore the habitable floor space requirements are met by virtue of the extension. The original plans showed the first floor flat as having three bedrooms. The habitable floor space was calculated at approximately 41 square metres, and would therefore be contrary to policy. The garden areas for each flat were not shown on the plans so amended plans were requested. These plans were required to show the first floor flat reduced to a 2 bedroom flat with new room allocation, plus details of the garden areas for each individual flat. Although Traffic and Road Safety have requested 4 car parking spaces, the three outlined on the plans do meet the requirements of the Interim Planning Standards. The car parking layout is also deficient however this matter could be resolved by the imposition of a condition if planning permission is granted. In particular the parking layout would need to make provision for a new dropped kerb close to the boundary with 955 Longbridge Road. A condition would also be required to reinstate the wall adjacent to the zebra crossing. The amended plans do show the new layout of the first floor flat, and one of the bedrooms has been changed to a lounge.
However it is felt that as this room is currently being used as bedroom, it is likely to remain so. Therefore this flat should be considered as a 3 bedroom dwelling, when calculating habitable floor space and as mentioned above the flat on the first floor has a shortfall of 8 square metres and is therefore contrary to Policy H16 in the UDP.
The plans show the area of the garden but do not provide details on how the garden will be divided between the two flats. More importantly even if garden space were to be provided for the first floor flat, access cannot be provided as the two storey side extension has removed the original side access. If planning permission were to be granted, it is likely that a family could occupy the first floor flat. Therefore access to a rear garden would be essential. As access cannot be provided for the first floor flat, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy H15.
The comments made by the adjoining occupier regarding the occupants and their finances are not material planning considerations. The points raised regarding the hours of construction could be covered by a standard planning condition, although this is not normally used to control small scale development to for residential dwelling houses.
Page 94
In conclusion, the flat on the first floor needs to be considered as a 3-bedroom dwelling and is contrary to policy H16 as it has a shortfall of 8 square metres in habitable floor area. The proposal is also contrary to policy H15 as access to the garden cannot be provided from the first floor flat.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1) The proposal is contrary to policy H15 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as access to the rear garden cannot be provided for the first floor flat which is capable of accommodating 3 bedrooms.
2) The proposal is contrary to policy H16 of the UDP as there is a shortfall in habitable floor area for the proposed first floor flat.
Note: If Members agree the recommendation Members are advised that enforcement action will be taken to secure the discontinuance of the unauthorised use.
Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 96 Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 98 AGENDA ITEM 19 Plan: L DC/02/00610/ADV Whalebone Ward (R)
Address: Texaco Petrol Filling Station, Whalebone Lane South, Dagenham
Development: Retention of externally illuminated advertisement hoarding
Applicant: Clear Channel UK Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprises a Texaco Petrol Filling Station and car wash on the western side of Whalebone Lane South. The site comprises a number of existing internally illuminated advertisements in relation to the petrol filling station use in the form of the standard canopy and totem pole sign. There are a number of commercial occupiers at the western edge of the site some of which advertise their presence through the use of ‘A’ frame boards located at the entrance to this site.
This application proposes the retention of an internally illuminated hoarding located on the southern boundary of the site adjacent to a neighbouring single storey commercial building and the totem pole sign. The hoarding is affixed to two poles and, whilst no measurements have been provided with the application, is approximately 5 metres high by 3 metres wide.
Background
The hoarding came to the attention of the Planning Division in July 2002 and it was established that it was in place without local authority consent. An advertisement application was requested and received in August 2002.
There is extensive planning history on this site relating to the variety of uses and adverts on this site. Advertisement consent was granted in 1990 for the erection of a totem pole (DC/90/00058/ADV) and in 1994 consent was granted for the installation of a replacement canopy fascia and free-standing signs (DC/94/00019/ADV). There are two pending applications on this site for the installation of an ATM (DC/02/00709/FUL) and a new fascia sign (DC/0200710/ADV).
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
Although no specific objection has been received in response to this application, the occupier of 77 Whalebone Lane South makes reference to a sign located adjacent to the wall of their property (referred to as 75 Whalebone Lane South) which makes maintenance of their property difficult and it has been erected on a ‘right of way’.
UDP Policy
DE15 Advertisement Hoardings
Policy issue in respect of prominence and effect on local visual amenity.
Page 99
Analysis
The Council view on advertisement hoardings is contained in Policy DE15 of the Unitary Development Plan. The policy seeks to confine such hoardings to areas away from residential development and when in place to be used as temporary screens to vacant or derelict sites. Moreover, the policy stipulates that the hoardings should be positioned so that they are not prominent or distracting to highway users and are satisfactorily located behind landscaped areas.
When assessed against the above criteria, this application falls on all grounds. Although located on a commercial premises, the area comprises a mix of commercial operations and residential dwellings, from which this development is visible. The hoarding is located adjacent to a single storey building and behind an area of car parking. It does not provide temporary screening to a vacant or derelict site and is a prominent feature from the adjoining highway.
The hoarding when viewed in isolation may be viewed as a design improvement on many of the standard large hoardings located throughout the borough, however, its location on a site already comprising a number of prominent advertisements only adds to the visual clutter and detracts from the visual amenity in the area and for local residents in particular.
Recommendation
That advertisement consent be refused for the following reason:
The proposed advertisement because of its position, size and means of illumination is an intrusive display, out of scale and character with this and surrounding properties and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, contrary to Policy DE15 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Members are advised that should advertisement consent be refused then enforcement proceedings will be recommenced to remove the unauthorised hoarding
Page 100 Page 101 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 102 AGENDA ITEM 20 Plan: R DC/02/00726/CTRL Thames Ward ( A )
Address: Old Coal Yard – CTRL construction site south of railway line, Choats Road.
Development: Construction Arrangements: for a Residential Construction Camp at the Ripple Lane Construction Site.
Applicant: Union Railways
1. Introduction and Legislative Framework
1.1 The Channel Tunnel Rail Link is designed to provide a high-speed rail service between St. Pancras and Folkestone, Kent. The link runs underground in the western part of the borough, emerging at the Ripple Lane Portal and continuing at ground level east to the boundary with the LB Havering.
1.2 The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 effectively grants outline planning permission for the development of the route whilst setting out a regime of powers and procedures within which Local Planning Authorities may control the details of the development. Under this regime, set out in section 9 of the Act, the nominated undertaker must submit two types of application in respect of the buildings and structures associated with the link. The first is an application for Plans and Specifications, relating to the completed works; and the other, an application for Construction Arrangements, relating to the construction methodology of such works.
1.3 Schedule 6 of the Act sets out those matters which are effectively reserved for local authorities to consider and, in relation to each of these matters, the grounds on which they may refuse consent or impose conditions. In the case of an application relating to Plans and Specifications there are two types of conditions: one is that the works could reasonably be carried out elsewhere and the other is one that requires some form of environmental mitigation. For applications relating to construction arrangements, conditions may only be imposed on those grounds listed within the Act under Part II, clause 7. These grounds predominantly relate to the preservation of local amenity and environment however, in any event, all conditions must be agreed with the nominated undertaker.
1.4 Schedule 6 provides that the nominated undertaker may appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions against a local authority’s decision to grant conditional consent or for non-determination and, in such event, regulations pursuant to this Schedule provide for an expedited appeals procedure.
2. Proposal
2.1 This application relates to the establishment of an additional residential construction camp at the existing Ripple Lane Construction Site off Choats Road. The construction site was approved in 1998 (ref:TP/395/97/CTRL) for the purposes of facilitating tunnelling operations and is currently fully operational. Approval for a camp of up to 20 people was granted on 11 June 2002, however following the appointment of a tunnelling contractor the need for an additional small residential construction camp for another 30 tunnelling Page 103 personnel has been identified. This compound will be situated in the eastern corner of the approved construction site; adjacent the Choats Manor Way Bridge. The camp will be organised and run in accordance with a management plan required under Paragraph 3.18 of the CTRL Code of Construction Practice, and will be discussed with the Councils Environmental Health Officer prior to the camp’s establishment.
2.2 This is a submission for only one construction arrangement under the CTRL Act i.e. a residential construction camp, and no approval for plans and specifications is required as no permanent structures are proposed.
3.0 Plans for Approval
• 250-DFD-SNWFK-70040-00 – Location Plan • 250-DFD-SNWFK-70041-00 - Ripple Lane Site Accomodation
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Copies of the submission were sent directly to the following bodies by RLE with the request that they provide comment within 21 days of receipt:
• Environment Agency (No comments received) • Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Officer (No comments received) • Barking All Groups (No comments received) • Scrattons Farms Residents Association (No comments received) • Barking Reach Residents Group (No comments received)
4.2 Internal consultation included the
• LES - Traffic and Road Safety Group (No Objections) • Dept of Housing and Health (Health) (No objections. Advised noise on the construction site will continue to be monitored through the Section 61 process)
5. Analysis
Noise
5.1 Potentially, additional noise could be generated from increased numbers of people and vehicles on site however considering the industrial location and existing noise being generated from activities currently taking place on site, it is considered by the Environmental Health Officers that additional noise will be negligible.
5.2 Having said that, should noise become an issue, it will monitored as part of the Section 61 associated with the main construction site which involves reviewing noise readings taken from various noise receptors situated outside of the site in the nearby vicinity.
Car parking and Vehicular Movements
5.3 An increase in the number of people on site will invariably result in additional traffic and vehicle movements on and off the site. As with above, considering the 24-hour use of the site, is not considered this will give rise to any adverse impacts in terms of traffic noise or road safety and will possibly act to improve security and surveillance of the site.
Page 104
Sanitary Facilities
5.4 Sanitary facilities will be provided on site in accordance with normal Health and Safety requirements.
6. Conclusion
6.1 The proposal to establish an additional residential construction camp will have minimal impacts and will improve safety and security on the construction site itself and within the surrounding area.
7. Recommendation
7.1 It is recommended that this submission for CONSTRUCTION ARRANGEMENTS BE APPROVED.
INFORMATIVE:
1. The nominated undertaker is reminded that Section 61 consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for these works must be issued by the Council prior to any works commencing on site.
The nominated undertaker is reminded the management plan required under Paragraph 3.18 of the CTRL Code of Construction Practice is to be discussed with the Councils Environmental Health Officer prior to the camps establishment.
Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 106 Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 108 AGENDA ITEM 21
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2002
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF LEISURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
TOWN PLANNING APPEALS FOR INFORMATION
Summary
To advise Members of recent appeals that have been lodged and decisions made.
Recommendation
To note the report.
Contact Officer - Tim Lewis Group Manager Development Control
1. Appeals Lodged
1.1 The following appeal has been lodged:
a) Installation of side and rear dormer window - 16 Upney Lane Barking (02/00353/FUL)
b) Resubmission: Use of premises as Muslim community centre to include prayer hall and educational facilities - Front Of Aka Unit 11 Pollyte Works Wantz Road Dagenham (02/00362/FUL)
c) Erection of single storey front and rear extensions and two storey side/rear extension - 9 Cornshaw Road Dagenham. (02/00211/FUL)
d) Application for determination as to whether prior approval is required for the installation of 12.5 metre high monopole and equipment cabinet on footpath on west side of Seabrook Hall - Seabrook Hall Wood Lane Dagenham (02/00508/PRIOR)
2 Appeals Determined.
2.1 The following appeals have been determined:
None
3. Appeals Withdrawn
3.1 None.
Page 109 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 110 AGENDA ITEM 22 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM
LEISURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SECTION
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD – DELEGATED APPLICATIONS
18 SEPTEMBER 2002 (DELEGATE)
APPL. NO. APPLICANT DEVELOPMENT AND WARD ADDRESS DC/02/00390/FUL Mr & Mrs R Erection of two storey side Eastbrook Turner and single storey rear extension and construction of rear dormer window 19 Laurel Crescent Rush Green Romford DC/02/00498/FUL Mr Carter Erection of single storey rear Eastbury bedroom and shower room extension 488 Ripple Road Barking DC/02/00521/FUL Belgrave Erection of 3 x one bedroom Abbey Properties flats and 1 x one bedroom maisonette – site adjoining 2 Salisbury Avenue Barking DC/02/00528/TPO Mr C Patel Application to carry out work Manor to preserved tree 70 Highgrove Road Dagenham DC/02/00537/FUL Ilford Building Erection of building (542m2) Eastbury Supplies in respect of use of site for the storage, distribution and sale of building materials Ilford Building Supplies Eastern Works Ripplie Road Barking DC/02/00558/FUL Mr P Tanna Erection of single storey rear Triptons extension 433 Becontree Avenue Dagenham DC/02/00567/FUL Mr S Stocker Erection of single storey rear Chadwell extension Heath 137 Mill Lane Chadwell Heath Romford DC/02/00569/REG3 D.E.A.L. Retention of existing Thames demountable classroom block Thames View Infants School Bastable Avenue Barking
Page 111
DC/02/00571/PRIOR T-Mobile (UK) Application for prior approval Abbey Ltd for the erection of equipment cabinet on roof for telecommunications purposes Crown House Linton Road Barking DC/02/00575/FUL S D Olushanu Erection of two storey side Heath and single rear extensions and construction of rear dormer window 109 Frizlands Lane Dagenham DC/02/00587/ADV Graham & Installation of externally Village Sibbald illuminated fascia and projecting sign 228-234 Heathway Dagenham DC/02/00599/FUL Mr & Mrs Erection of single storey rear Chadwell Charles extension Heath 50 Hainault Road Chadwell Heath DC/02/00600/FUL Mrs Whincup Formation of rooms in roof Longbridge involving erection of rear dormer windows 22 Sandringham Road Barking DC/02/00607/FUL Mrs K J Sharma Erection of single storey rear River extension 25 First Avenue Dagenham DC/02/00608/FUL Mr L C Jones & Erection of part single/two Fanshawe Mrs J Brindley- storey side and rear Jones extension to provide kitchen/dining area and entrance point on ground floor and with bedroom and bathroom on first floor 8 Terrace Walk Dagenham DC/02/00609/FUL Mr J Auglas Erection of single storey rear Chadwell extension Heath 6 Ashton Gardens Chadwell Heath DC/02/00622/FUL Mr Humphrys Erection of two storey side Village extension 10 Canberra Close Dagenham DC/02/00623/FUL Mr D Black Erection of single storey rear River conservatory 82 Orchard Road Dagenham
Page 112
DC/02/00624/FUL Mr & Mrs P Erection of single storey rear Longbridge Vince extension 31 Melford Avenue Barking DC/02/00661/ADV Talk 4 All Installation of fascia and Abbey projecting signs 32 Station Parade Barking
Page 113 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM
LEISURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SECTION
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD – DELEGATED APPLICATIONS
26 SEPTEMBER 2002 (DELEGATE)
APPL. NO. APPLICANT DEVELOPMENT AND WARD ADDRESS DC/02/00358/FUL Mrs S Deer Erection of single storey side Chadwell extension Heath 6 Willow Road Chadwell Heath Romford DC/02/00445/FUL A Michael Extension of hours of Longbridge opening hot food shop to permit use from 8am to 9pm Monday to Saturday and 9am to 4pm Sundays 8 Faircross Parade Longbridge Road Barking DC/02/00469/FUL Mr C M O’Leary Erection of two storey three River bedroom house to land adjacent 131 Beam Avenue Dagenham DC/02/00502/ADV Caversham Installation of internally Abbey Finance illuminated fascia sign 62 – 64 Station Parade Barking DC/02/00522/FUL E-One Haulage Erection of two storey office Goresbrook Ltd building – Yard No. 2 Plot 1, Old Coal Yard, Choats Road Dagenham DC/02/00535/FUL Mr R Ayres Amended application: Marks Gate Retention of replacement changing room Romford F.C. Football (Formerly Collier Row F.C.) Collier Row Road Romford DC/02/00541/FUL Joe Jennings Ltd Proposed use of premises Becontree as betting office (Class A2) 679 – 681 Green Lane Dagenham DC/02/00544/FUL Mr Ade Martins Erection of single storey rear River kitchen extension and two storey side extension to provide ground floor flat and additional accommodation to existing house over 213 Ballards Road Dagenham
Page 114
DC/02/00548/FUL Mr A A Odetunde Erection of front door porch River and two storey rear extension 115 Beam Avenue Dagenham DC/02/00565/FUL The Woolwich Installation of new shopfront Goresbrook PLC and rear fencing to yard 251-253 Heathway Dagenham DC/02/00580/CLUP Mr M Hussain Application for a Certificate Abbey of Lawfulness of a proposed development – Erection of games room in rear garden DC/02/00583/FUL Mrs A Olodo Erection of conservatory Village 146 Manor Road Dagenham DC/02/00588/FUL The Woolwich Alterations to shopfront Chadwell PLC 36 High Road Chadwell Heath Heath DC/02/00589/FUL S Knoppik Erection of first floor rear Chadwell extension and formation of Heath room in roof involving construction of rear dormer window 4 Japan Road Chadwell Heath DC/02/00592/FUL Mr & Mrs Erection of single storey rear Eastbrook Scawthorn and two storey side extensions 1 Lilac Gardens Rush Green Romford DC/02/00601/ADV London Bus Installation of internally Chadwell Services illuminated advertisement Heath Limited posters on bus passenger shelter, south side of High Road west of 166 High Road Chadwell Heath High Road Chadwell Heath Romford DC/02/00611/FUL Steven Young Erection of single storey Heath extension to shop to provide additional storage space and staff facilities 42 Whalebone Lane South Dagenham DC/02/00613/FUL Mr Safieddine Erection of rear Becontree conservatory 41 Holden Close Dagenham DC/02/00614/FUL Mrs E Erection of front porch and Heath Thompson canopy 98 Frizlands Lane Dagenham
Page 115
DC/02/00620/FUL Mr & Mrs V Erection of single storey and Longbridge Bennici part two storey rear extension 237 Westrow Drive Barking DC/02/00625/FUL Miss A V Dyer Construction of footway Manor crossing 260 Porters Avenue Dagenham DC/02/00630/FUL Mr P J Grint Erection of two storey side River extension 11 Orchard Road Dagenham
DC/02/00632/FUL Mr & Mrs A R Erection of rear Fanshawe Cash conservatory/extension 120 Wood Lane Dagenham DC/02/00643/FUL Mr & Mrs Erection of single storey rear Chadwell Lovett extension Heath 463 Whalebone Lane North Chadwell Heath DC/02/00647/FUL LBBD Retention of single storey Heath demountable building 512A Heathway Dagenham DC/02/00664/PRIOR Hutchinson 3G Application for determination Eastbury UK Limited as to whether prior approval is required for the erection of 13.3m high slimline monopole together with 3 no. 1.7m high antennas, 1 no. 0.3m diameter transmission dish and associated equipment and meter cabinets Barking Industrial Park Alfreds Way Barking DC/02/00719/ADV Land Erection of 1 no internally Abbey Securities illuminated fascia sign and 1 Trillium no. directory sign Phoenix House, 12-14 Wakering Road Barking DC/02/00632/FUL Mr & Mrs A R Erection of rear Fanshawe Cash conservatory/extension 120 Wood Lane Dagenham
Page 116
LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM
LEISURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SECTION
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD – DELEGATED APPLICATIONS
3 OCTOBER 2002 (DELEGATE)
APPL. NO. APPLICANT DEVELOPMENT AND WARD ADDRESS DC/02/00473/FUL Mr K Patel Installation of new shopfront Heath and roller shutter 31 Stansgate Road Dagenham DC/02/00507/FUL Swaby Clarke & Change of use of retail shop Abbey Norris to solicitors office 95 Longbridge Road Barking DC/02/00510/FUL Scottish & Erection of 2 metre high Gascoigne Newcastle Retail boundary fence and car park barrier Premier Lodge Highbridge Road Barking DC/02/00582/ADV Global Installation of internally Abbey Connections illuminated projecting box sign 4 The Triangle Tanner Street Barking DC/02/00585/ADV J C Decaux Retention of existing Cambell temporary 96 sheet advertisement hoarding Ripple Garage 723 Ripple Road Barking DC/02/00597/FUL Reliance Use of warehouse premises Abbey (Class B8) for the service, repair and maintenance of motor vehicles (Class B2) with ancillary sales area SGB Depot – Former British Bas Sports Ground Hertford Road Barking DC/02/00602/FUL Mr H Hussien Formation of room in roof Village involving construction of rear dormer window 79 Auriel Avenue Dagenham DC/02/00612/FUL Mr A Forter Extension to provide new Longbridge foyer and stair enclosure together with relocation of existing fire escape Upney Baptish Church Cavendish Gardens Barking
Page 117
DC/02/00621/FUL Mr & Mrs J R Erection of single storey Goresbrook O’Connell front extension 172 Hedgemans Road Dagenham DC/02/00626/FUL Mr S Webb Erection of rear Goresbrook conservatory 72 Comyns Road Dagenham DC/02/00627/FUL Mr Wood Erection of two storey rear Chadwell Heath extension 61 Morley Road Chadwell Heath DC/02/00631/FUL Mr Y Kaka Erection of single storey Parsloes front and part single/part two storey side extension 51 Rugby Road Dagenham DC/02/00633/FUL Asda Stores Retention of existing petrol Goresbrook Merrielands filling station, extension and Crescent reorganisation of existing car Dagenham park and associated works Asda Stores Merrielands Crescent Dagenham DC/02/00637/FUL Dockgrange Retention of 4 demountable Thames Limited buildings 72-76 River Road Barking DC/02/00640/FUL Mr Singh Erection of two storey side Longbridge and single storey rear extensions 8 Manor Road Barking DC/02/00658/FUL Mr & Mrs N Erection of rear Parsloes Constantinides conservatory 25 Brewood Road Dagenham DC/02/00659/FUL Housing & Health Erection of 6 no. air Abbey Department conditioning condenser units with screen enclosure 15 Linton Road Barking DC/02/00671/FUL Sara Barclay Erection of single storey rear Heath extension 9 Rowlands Road Dagenham
Page 118
LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM
LEISURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SECTION
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD – DELEGATED APPLICATIONS
16 OCTOBER 2002 (DELEGATE)
APPL. NO. APPLICANT DEVELOPMENT AND WARD ADDRESS DC/02/00644/CLUP Mr S McGregor Application of a Certificate of Heath Lawfulness of a proposed development – Erection of single storey rear extension 9 Boyne Road Dagenham DC/02/00645/FUL T Morris Erection of single storey rear Manor extension and rear conservatory 54 Durell Road Dagenham DC/02/00656/FUL Mr G S Dhillon Erection of single storey rear Longbridge extension 17 Faircross Parade Upney Lane Barking DC/02/00657/FUL Mrs K A Scott Variation of condition no. 4 Village of decision notice TP/183/92: Use of garage as living space 7 Lewis Way Dagenham DC/02/00674/FUL Mr G S Toot Erection of single storey rear Longbridge extension 100 Beccles Drive Barking DC/02/00675/FUL Mr Green Amended application: Goresbrook Erection of two storey side and single storey side/rear extension 125 Stamford Road Dagenham DC/02/00676/FUL Mr Edmead Erection of single storey side Mayesbrook extension 421 Ivyhouse Road Dagenham DC/02/00682/CLUE Andrew Application for Certificate of Goresbrook Azzopardi Lawfulness of an Existing Use: Use of part of premises as one flat 9b Chequers Parade Ripple Road Barking DC/02/00684/FUL Mr P A Dalton Erection of single storey Valence front extension 569 Becontree Avenue Dagenham Page 119
DC/02/00693/FUL Mrs B A Continuance of use of one Eastbrook Akwaboah ground floor room as nursing agency 22 Eastbrook Drive Rush Green Romord DC/02/00704/FUL Mr M Ilori Erection of rear Eastbury conservatory 73 Suffolk Road Barking DC/02/00706/FUL Dagenham Retention of single storey Eastbrook Redbridge building for use as computer Football Club suite for educational purposes Football Ground Victoria Road Dagenham DC/02/00707/FUL Nicholls & Clarke Variation of condition 21 of Chadwell decision notice number Heath DC/01/00766/FUL to allow showroom/trade centre to open between 10.00am and 4.00pm on public and bank holidays and erection of security hut North Site Formerly Part of Herberts Factory Freshwater Road Dagenham
Page 120 AGENDA ITEM 23
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2002
REPORT OF THE BOROUGH POLICY OFFICER
LONDON RIVERSIDE – URBAN STRATEGY FOR INFORMATION
Summary ‘London Riverside’ is the brand name chosen for the area on the north side of the Thames stretching from Rainham Marshes in the east through to Barking Creek in the west – the southern parts of the two London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Havering. It is planned to be the next step in the eastward growth of London within the Thames Gateway, from the City, through London Docklands, to London Riverside.
London Riverside will play a crucial strategic role in providing what is needed in terms of homes, jobs, and opportunities for local communities and London as a whole. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is central in this process, and must be active in seeking the best possible outcomes for Barking and Dagenham from these regional regeneration initiatives.
This report sets out the aims of the London Riverside Urban Strategy, which has been supported by The Executive, in principle, as the basis for future regeneration and planning policies in this area.
Recommendation That the Board note the contents of this report.
Contact Head of Regeneration, Tel: 020 8227 2443 Officer: Chief Executive’s Fax: 020 8227 2035 Jeremy Grint Department Email: [email protected] Minicom: 020 8227 2685
BACKGROUND
London Riverside is a priority area for the Mayor of London and the London Development Agency (LDA), and a Zone of Change for the Government’s Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership.
London Riverside is an area that extends across six square kilometres on the north bank of the Thames from Barking Creek to the eastern edge of Greater London – the same distance that lies between the Houses of Parliament and Canary Wharf. It contains some of the London’s largest vacant sites, important industrial areas and some of the capital’s last wild spaces and valued habitats. It is an area with a unique mix of land uses, where grazing marshes sit side-by-side with busy river wharves, and where residential areas are near large engineering plants.
Page 121 Positioned strategically on the Thames, London Riverside has good road links both to central London and to the M25, and growth areas in Essex and Kent. At the same time, it has suffered from isolation and environmental degradation. Most land south of the A13 is accessible only by car (if at all), and much of the vacant land is contaminated, or blighted by previous neglect of design and environmental quality.
The LDA has has committed £32 million to Heart of Thames Gateway Partnership Ltd’s (HoTG) regeneration programme, and is investing directly in developing the area. A London Riverside Action Group comprising the following - London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering, and Newham, Thurrock Borough Council, London Development Agency, Greater London Authority, Heart of Thames Gateway Ltd., Thames Gateway London Partnership, Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership, and Transport for London - has been established through HoTG to prepare a London Riverside Urban Strategy. The aim of his strategy is to raise the profile of what is possible in the area and to be used to lobby relevant agencies and organisations.
THE STRATEGY
The Vision for London Riverside London Riverside will be a new mixed urban centre on the River Thames. It will make optimum use of land to accommodate leading-edge businesses and sustainable housing, new leisure and community facilities designed around new and existing public transport and integrated with existing communities. By 2016, London Riverside will be able to accommodate at least 20,000 new homes and jobs for an extra 25,000 people. With the right conditions in place, these numbers could rise.
Drivers for change The scale and scope of opportunity offered in London Riverside is unique in London. As London’s population grows, London Riverside will play a crucial role in meeting the demand for new housing, while retaining and strengthening its industrial base, creating new investment opportunities and preserving ecological assets.
London Riverside is already changing. The new Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence (CEME), housing proposals at Barking Reach and the release of Ford land at South Dagenham for new mixed use developments are just three of the major developments in the pipeline. The urban strategy will capitalise on the potential these and future developments offer, by ensuring that they form part of a sustainable, inclusive and coherent development framework.
The goal London Riverside will be a new mixed urban centre on the River Thames, which delivers real and lasting improvements for the economy, the environment and the people who live here now and in the future. London Riverside will:-
1. Be London’s leading centre for excellence in innovation and high tech manufacturing. It will use CEME, and existing employers such as Ford to deliver world class expertise, promote research and provide exceptional opportunities for new investment and economic growth, for businesses of all sizes.
2. Provide an accessible and sustainable home for industries that serve London and for the growth sector of environmental technology.
3. Welcome new urban communities, providing a mix of high quality housing and local commercial and community facilities in areas such as Barking Reach and South Dagenham, as well as finding opportunities to make better use of housing land in other areas easily accessible by public transport (such as Rainham Page 122 Village). A range of types and tenures of housing will be developed to integrate with existing communities and provide for London’s housing needs.
4. Capitalise on the opportunities offered by the River Thames, open spaces and nature conservation in wild space like Wennington and Aveley Marshes, and will set development in a framework of green corridors and routes to the river. This will create a place that is attractive for Londoners and investors alike, and a landscape and environmental quality unlike any other part of London.
5. Be a place with a clear and celebrated identity of which people are proud, where people have the chance to shape their own future, where eliminating disadvantage has top priority, where diversity is valued, and where regeneration is based on s strong partnership including public, private and voluntary organisations, and communities.
Enabling and steering change The members of London Riverside Action Group are committed to working together to deliver this vision.
The approach taken to change will be both strategic and flexible. Long term investment in transport improvements will be the key to successful development. Land use will be linked closely to transport, to ensure sustainable development and optimum use of land. The strategy adopts a design-led approach to encourage intensification of both residential and industrial uses, improvements to the public realm and better relationships between these elements. The approach will therefore be one of ‘inclusive change’, which values and celebrates the sheer scale and diversity of land uses, is inclusive of existing communities and assets, and seeks the highest standards of sustainable architecture and urban design.
The partners will need to maintain a tight grip on change locally to ensure that opportunities are maximised (for local people and London as a whole), and that threats are tackled. This will involve ‘catching and steering’ developments at an early stage and insisting on the highest quality of architecture and urban design.
AGENDA FOR ACTION The following key actions have been identified for the successful regeneration of London Riverside
Transport An integrated transport system is crucial in opening up inaccessible sites and making the most of the opportunities offered in London Riverside. We will press for
• Improved services along the current rail corridor – an enhanced Metro style service and extension of the Hammersmith and City London Underground line to Rainham - including new stations at Renwick Road and CEME • Good links and interchange with Crossrail • A Docklands Light Railway extension from Canary Wharf / The Royals via Gallions Reach over Barking Creek, through Barking Reach, to South Dagenham and on to CEME and Rainham. • An East London/Thames Gateway Transit linking London Riverside with town centres and residential areas to the north • A new river crossing at Gallions Reach (Thames Gateway Bridge) • Comprehensive and well designed provision for bus services, cycles and pedestrians throughout London Riverside • Excellent interchange facilities between and within modes
Page 123
Developing strategies Focused strategies will be developed for: • Barking Reach, • areas around Dagenham Dock and Rainham Stations, and the new stations, • the east-west links through the industrial core areas (including the green framework), • the Thames and riverfront areas • improvements to the quality of buildings and the public realm at new and existing developments, • South Dagenham, • Dagenham Dock, • Ferry Lane, and • Rainham Conservation Park. Where relevant these strategies will include proposals for land assembly, infrastructure, transport, property development, and environmental improvement.
Securing investment and funding To secure the total transformation of this area a comprehensive programme of investment will be required; • Property investment programme • Environmental improvement programme to tackle major constraints and the image of the area • Inward Investment Service • Business development, innovation and aftercare services • Workforce development programme • Committed public and private sector funding
New delivery vehicle London Riverside partners can achieve much through working together though existing institutions. However, to achieve its full potential, London Riverside needs a new delivery partnership (such as an urban regeneration company) to maximise, focus and direct resources. This strategy sets an agenda for action for such a partnership.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
In preparing the strategy, London Riverside partners considered the likely development scenarios for different sites and locations within the area. In many cases, the existing scenario was confirmed; in others change is anticipated. In two cases (Creekmouth and Rainham Marsh), there is still some uncertainty, which will be resolved through the planning process.
1. Creekmouth is an industrial area running down the River Roding to the Thames, with real potential for improvement and intensification. It is expected to remain in this use, though the long-term future of the southern end of the estate will be determined through the planning system.
2. Barking Reach is one of London’s largest housing sites. It will become a new urban community by the Thames with a mixture of housing types and tenures, with good local services, and served by good public transport.
3. Barking A13 Industrial Area is currently an important mix of industrial and warehousing primarily servicing London’s needs. It is expected that while this area will be improved environmentally, it will remain in its existing use. Page 124
4. South Dagenham will deliver a mix of commercial, industrial and residential development on around 80 hectares of land between the main rail corridor and the A1306. It provide a new heart for Dagenham and a transitional zone between the housing areas to the north, and the industrial areas of Dagenham Dock and the Ford Motor Company estate.
5. Dagenham Dock is currently an underused industrial site, with many areas of poor environmental quality. It will become a sustainable industrial area, with a special focus on green industries and a new environmental technology research centre, to capitalise on its position on the river, and the forecast growth in this sector.
6. Ford Sites will continue as a base for London’s largest manufacturing employer, a global centre for diesel engine production, and continuation of the body panel manufacture and international distribution operations. Opportunities for more intensive use of some Ford land are being discussed with the company.
7. Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence will be a world class further and higher education facility, coupled with conference and hotel facilities, and a business innovation centre.
8. Beam Reach Business Park will provide 35 hectares for modern advanced manufacturing businesses, including strategic sites for inward investment, move- on accommodation from the business innovation centre, and a suppliers’ park for diesel engine components.
9. Fairview Estate is a relatively modern industrial estate with some further development potential, where ongoing upgrading and adaptation to meet modern business requirements will be encouraged.
10. East A1306 Industrial Areas To the east of south Dagenham, industrial and commercial buildings, - some of them poor quality and under-used – line both sides of the road, offering the opportunity to create a more intensive mix of residential as well as employment uses in a much improved environment.
11. Rainham Village will see substantial improvements to the environment and accessibility of the historic centre, and available sites redeveloped for higher density residential use, focused around a new transport interchange.
12. Ferry Lane north and south of the new A13 will see better road access and new public transport services, which will be the catalyst for the revitalisation of this degraded area, and its progressive redevelopment for higher quality employment uses.
13. Rainham Conservation Park will bring together the SSSI designated marshes, most of which are already an RSPB nature reserve, and a new country park beside the Thames, which is being created from a current landfill site. This will provide a regionally important ecological and leisure asset for London Riverside, extending over an area of 640 hectares, with a new visitor centre and much improved access.
14. Coldharbour Lane Estate is currently used for waste recycling and warehousing. It offers further potential to develop sustainable industries within London Riverside.
Page 125
15. A13 and A1306 provide opportunities for environmental improvements, including better signing of ‘London Riverside’. HoTG has already begun a major programme of improvements to the A1306.
16. The green framework and riverside spaces will form an accessible and environmentally sustainable framework for development, as well as a leisure amenity for residents and visitors.
17. Existing housing areas with improving public transport accessibility will offer selective opportunities for redevelopment and integration into new developments to the south.
Background papers used in the preparation of this report:]
An Urban Strategy for London Riverside
Page 126