London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Notice of Meeting
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
Tuesday, 3 December 2002 - Town Hall, Barking, 6:45 pm (PLEASE NOTE START TIME)
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 S Kallar, 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
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 5 November 2002 (Pages 1 - 9)
3. London Riverside - Urban Strategy Presentation (Pages 11 - 16)
New Planning Applications
4. Plan A - 02/00636/FUL (Pages 17 - 21)
BR/04/03/02 5. Plan B & C - 02/0094/FUL - 27 Lodge Avenue and 02/00107/FUL - 29 Lodge Avenue, Dagenham (Pages 23 - 25)
6. Plan D - 02/00732/FUL - The Farmhouse Tavern Public House, Dagenham Road, Rush Green (Pages 27 - 29)
7. Plan E - 02/00519/FUL - The Pipers Public House, Amesbury Road, Dagenham (Pages 31 - 37)
8. Plan F - 02/00808/FUL - 23 Cranleigh Gardens, Barking (Pages 39 - 41)
9. Plan G - 02/00666/FUL - 7 Royal Parade, Church Street, Dagenham (Pages 43 - 47)
10. Plan H - 02/00511/FUL - 13-17 Station Road, Chadwell Heath (Pages 49 - 55)
11. Plan I - 02/00705/FUL - 39 Harpour Road, Barking (Pages 57 - 59)
12. Plan J - 02/00771/FUL - 107 Goresway, Rush Green (Pages 61 - 63)
13. Plan K - 02/00745/FUL - 61 Warrington Road, Dagenham (Pages 65 - 67)
14. Plan L - 02/00789/OUT - 145-207 Bevan Avenue, Barking (Pages 69 - 75)
15. Plan M - 02/00801/FUL - Barking Business Centre, 25 Thames Road, Barking (Pages 77 - 79)
16. Plan N - 01/00331/FUL - Former Chelsea Metals (London) Ltd., Renwick Road, Barking (Pages 81 - 91)
17. Plan O - 02/00595/FUL - Gascoigne Wharf, Alfreds Way, Barking (Pages 93 - 103)
18. Plan P - 02/00788/OUT - Ravensfield Close, Dagenham (Pages 105 - 109)
19. Plan Q - 02/00564/FUL - Frizlands Depot, Frizlands Lane, Dagenham (Pages 111 - 117)
20. Plan R - 02/00605/FUL - London and Coastal Oil Wharves, Hindmans Way, Dagenham (Pages 119 - 121)
21. Plan S - 02/00573/REG3 - Thames View Infants School, Bastable Avenue, Barking (Pages 123 - 127)
BR/04/03/02 - oOo -
22. Delegated Decisions (Pages 129 - 133)
23. Any other public items which the Chair decides are urgent
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. The list below shows why items are in the private part of the agenda. There are no such items at the time of preparing this agenda.
25. Any confidential or exempt items which the Chairman decides are urgent
BR/04/03/02 This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 2
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
Tuesday, 5 November 2002 (7.00 - 9.42 p.m.)
Present: 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 S Kallar, Councillor M A McCarthy, Councillor Mrs J E Rawlinson, Councillor S Summerfield, Councillor Mrs P A Twomey, Councillor J P Wainwright, Councillor L R Waker, Councillor Mrs M M West, Councillor C J Fairbrass and Councillor Mrs V M Rush.
Also Present: Councillor C J Fairbrass and Councillor Mrs V M Rush
Apologies: Councillor A G Thomas.
42. Minutes - to confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2002
Agreed
43. *Plan A - 02/00655/FUL - 152 Broad Street, Dagenham
Permission granted subject to condition B1.
44. Plan B - 02/00629/FUL - Former Bonabond Site (Boyers Lake) Western Avenue, Dagenham
Permission refused for the following reason: The development is contrary to Policy G3 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.
45. *Plan C - 02/00431/FUL - 24A, 26A and 28A Station Parade, Barking
Permission granted.
46. Plan D - 02/00546/FUL - 94 Wood Lane, Dagenham
Permission refused for the following reason: The proposed change of use is contrary to Policy S6 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.
47. Plan E - 02/00617/FUL - 235 Oxlow Lane, Dagenham
Permission refused for the following reason:
BR/04/03/02 Page 1 The proposed change of use is contrary to Policy S6 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.
48. Plan F - 210 Ripple Road, Barking
Permission 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 develo0pment 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.
49. Plan G - 02/00154/FUL - Dupont Performance Coating, Freshwater Road, Dagenham
Permission granted 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 and the following conditions: 1. F1 Details of soft landscaping 2. F2 Implementation of proposed soft landscaping 3. F4 Details of hard landscaping 4. I4 Vehicle access (Commercial) 5. I6 Completion of parking areas 6. I7 use of parking areas 7. I12 Cycle parking 8. O1 Details of refuse enclosures 9. P1 Details of boundary treatment 10. Q1 Details/samples of facing materials 11. R1 Ramped access 12. 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 provision of monitoring, shall be then 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 to the Local Planning before development commences. 14. Before 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
BR/04/03/02 Page 2 British Standard disabled symbol and permanently retained for the use of disabled persons and their vehicles and for no other purpose.
50. Plan H - 02/00667/OUT - Land adjacent to 53 St Johns Road, Barking
Permission refused for the following reasons: 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, 2. The residential amenity space provided by the proposal is below the minimum required and is therefore contrary to Policy H15 of the Unitary Development Plan. 3. The maximum off-street parking spaces are unsatisfactorily sited and as they cannot be accessed safely from Sparsholt Road contrary to Policy 17 of the Unitary Development Plan. 4. The proposed extension to the rear is contrary to Policy H22 and Appendix 7 of the Unitary Development Plan and Appendix 7 of the Unitary Development Plan as it is in excess of 3.65m deep and would result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers.
51. Plan I - 02/00593/FUL - YMCA, Rush Green Road, Romford
Permission granted subject to the following condition: The mobile base station will operate in accordance with the International Commission on Non-lionising 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.
52. *Plan J - 02/00389/FUL - 1-2 Tudor Parade, High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford
Permission granted 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, and the following conditions: 1. M2 Hours of retail 7.00 am to 11.00 pm 2. N1 Details of sound insulation
53. Plan K - 02/00485/FUL - Sub-station/land to the rear of 3-9 Lambourne Gardens, Barking
Withdrawn.
54. *Plan M - 02/00563/FUL - 14 Beccles Drive, Barking
Permission refused for the following reason: The proposed development would result in an over-development of the site contrary to Policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan by virtue of : 1. The formation of a property that would be out of scale and character with the surrounding area and could result in additional noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents. 2. Inadequate and poorly laid out car parking which would be likely to result
BR/04/03/02 Page 3 in additional parking on-street to the detriment of highway safety.
55. Plan N - 02/00712/FUL - 74 Shirley Gardens
Withdrawn.
56. Plan O - 02/00708/FUL - London Works, Ripple Road, Barking
Permission granted 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, and the following conditions: 1. F1 Details of soft landscaping 2. F2 Implementation of proposed soft landscaping 3. F4 Details of hard landscaping 4. I4 Vehicular access (Commercial) 5. I6 Completion of parking areas 6. I7 Use of parking areas 7. I11 Cycle parking 8. M.4 Hours of construction work 9. O1 Details of dustbin enclosures 10. P1 Details of boundary treatment 11. R1 Ramped access 12. R2 Disabled driver and passenger bays 13. U1 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 build 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. L1 Open storage 17. Prior to the commencement of construction work on buildings A and B revised details as to the elevation appearance of building A shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 18. Detailed design proposals for the re-engineered watercourse along the eastern boundary of the site shall be agreed with the Planning Authority before development commences. Details shall include current and proposed plans and sections showing the following: (a) no net loss in channel capacity (b) new bank gradients no sleeper than one in two and; (c) absence of concrete, rubble, steel and other artificial materials from the channel and associated land. 19. Any planting to be carried out within 5 metres of any watercourses shall be of native species, indigenous to the location and of UK genetic stock. 20. The construction of the site drainage system shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences.
BR/04/03/02 Page 4 57. *Plan P - 02/00316/FUL - Oriel House (also known as New Enterprise House) 149-151 High Road, Chadwell Heath
Permission refused for the to the following reason: The proposed proliferation of telecommunications equipment on this building has given rise to a perception of a health and safety risk+to occupiers of nearby residential premises and schools.
58. Plan Q - 02/00652/FUL - 953 Longbridge Road, Dagenham
Permission 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 Unitary Development Plan as there is a shortfall in habitable floor area for the proposed first floor flat.
59. Plan L - 02/00610/ADV - Texaco Petrol Filling Station, Whalebone Lane South, Dagenham
Permission 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.
60. Plan R - 02/00726/CTRL - Old Coal Yard - CTRL construction site south of railway line, Choats Road
Permission granted.
* Speakers were present for this application.
61. Town Planning Appeals
(i) Lodged - The following appeals have 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 (o2/00362/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,
BR/04/03/02 Page 5 Wood Lane, Dagenham (02/00508/PRIOR).
(ii) Determined - None
(iii) Appeals Withdrawn - None
62. Delegated Decisions
Received details of delegated approved decisions for the period 18 September to 16 October 2002 as set out below:
DC/02/00390/FUL 19 Laurel Crescent, Rush Green, Romford DC/02/00498/FUL 488 Ripple Road, Barking DC/02/00521/FUL 2 Salisbury Avenue, Barking DC/02/00528/TPO 70 Highgrove Road, Dagenham DC/02/00537/FUL Ilford Building Supplies, Eastern Works, Ripple Road, Barking DC/0200558/FUL 433 Becontree Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00567/FUL 137 Mill Lane, Chadwell Heath, Romford DC/02/00569/REG3 Thames View Infants School, Bastable Avenue Barking DC/02/00571/PRIOR Crown House, Linton Road, Barking DC/02/00575/FUL 109 Frizlands Lane, Dagenham DC/02/00587/ADV 228-234 Heathway, Dagenham DC/02/00599/FUL 50 Hainault Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford DC/02/00600/FUL 22 Sandringham Road, Barking DC/02/00607/FUL 25 First Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00608/FUL 8 Terrace Walk, Dagenham DC/02/00609/FUL 6 Ashton Gardens, Chadwell Heath, Romford DC/02/00622/FUL 10 Canberra Close, Dagenham DC/02/00623/FUL 82 Orchard Road, Dagenham DC/02/00624/FUL 31 Melford Avenue, Barking DC/02/00661/ADV 32 Station Parade, Barking DC/02/00358/FUL 6 Willow Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford DC/02/00445/FUL 8 Faircross Parade, Longbridge Road, Barking DC/02/00469/FUL 131 Beam Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00502/FUL 62-64 Station Parade, Barking DC/02/00522/FUL Plot 1, Old Coal Yard, Choats Road, Dagenham DC/02/00535/FUL Romford F.C. Football (former Collier Row F.C Collier Row Road, Romford DC/02/00541/FUL 679-681 Green Lane, Dagenham DC/02/00544/FUL 213 Ballards Road, Dagenham DC/02/00548/FUL 115 Beam Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00565/FUL 251-253 Heathway, Dagenham DC/02/00580/CLUP DC/02/00583/FUL 146 Manor Road, Dagenham DC/02/00588/FUL 36 High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford DC/02/00589/FUL 4 Japan Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford DC/02/00592/FUL 1 Lilac Gardens, Rush Green, Romford DC/02/00601/ADV High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford DC/02/00611/FUL 42 Whalebone Lane South, Dagenham DC/02/00613/FUL 41 Holden Close, Dagenham DC/02/00614/FUL 98 Frizlands Lane, Dagenham
BR/04/03/02 Page 6 DC/02/00620/FUL 237 Westrow Drive, Barking DC/02/00625/FUL 11 Orchard Road, Dagenham DC/02/00632/FUL 120 Wood Lane, Dagenham DC/02/00643/FUL 463 Whalebone Lane North, Chadwell Heath DC/02/00647/FUL 512A Heathway, Dagenham DC/02/00664/PRIOR Barking Industrial Park, Alfreds Way, Barking DC/02/00719/ADV Phoenix House, 12-14 Wakering Road, Barking DC/02/00632/FUL 120 Wood Lane, Dagenham DC/02/00473/FUL 31 Stansgate Road, Dagenham DC/02/00507/FUL 95 Longbridge Road, Barking DC/02/00510/FUL Premier Lodge, Highbridge Road, Barking DC/02/00582/ADV 4 The Triangle, Tanner Street, Barking DC/02/00585/ADV Ripple Garage, 723 Ripple Road, Barking DC/02/00597/FUL SGB Depot (former British Bas Sports Ground) Hertford Road, Barking DC/02/00602/FUL 79 Auriel Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00612/FUL Upney Baptist Church, Cavendish Gardens, Barking DC/02/00621/FUL 172 Hedgemans Road, Dagenham DC/02/00626/FUL 72 Comyns Road, Dagenham DC/02/00627/FUL 61 Morley Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford DC/02/00631/FUL 51 Rugby Road, Dagenham DC/02/00633/FUL Asda Stores, Merrielands Crescent, Dagenham DC/02/00637/FUL 72-76 River Road, Barking DC/02/00640/FUL 8 Manor Road, Barking DC/02/00658/FUL 25 Brewood Road, Dagenham DC/02/00659/FUL 15 Linton Road, Barking DC/02/00671/FUL 9 Rowlands Road, Dagenham DC/02/00644/CULP 9 Boyne Road, Dagenham DC/02/00645/FUL 54 Durell Road, Dagenham DC/02/00656/FUL 17 Faircross Parade, Upney Lane, Barking DC/02/00657/FUL 7 Lewis Way, Dagenham DC/02/00674/FUL 100 Beccles Drive, Barking DC/02/00675/FUL 125 Stamford Road, Dagenham DC/02/00676/FUL 421 Ivyhouse Road, Dagenham DC/02/00682/CLUE 9b Chequers Parade, Ripple Road, Barking DC/02/00684/FUL 569 Becontree Avenue, Dagenham DC/02/00693/FUL 22 Eastbrook Drive, Rush Green, Romford DC/02/00704/FUL 73 Suffolk Road, Barking DC/02/00706/FUL Football Ground, Victoria Road, Dagenham DC/02/00707/FUL North Site (formerly part of Herberts Factory), Freshwater Road, Dagenham
63. London Riverside - Urban Strategy
We agreed to defer this presentation until our next meeting to be held on 3 December 2002.
BR/04/03/02 Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank
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
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
3 DECEMBER 2002
REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
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 11 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 12 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 13
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 14
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 15
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 16 AGENDA ITEM 4
Plan: A DC/02/00636/FUL Eastbrook Ward (A)
Address: Eastbrook Comprehensive School, Dagenham Road, Dagenham
Development: Formation of hardsurface for 3 tennis courts, netball court and erection of 5 metre high fencing
Applicant: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham – Education Assets
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprises an area of land at the north western edge of the open space within the grounds of Eastbrook Comprehensive School. The site lies to the west of a part single/two storey teaching block and to the south and east of the rear gardens of residential properties. The area is currently an informal grassed area. To the south east there are a number of sports pitches and a running track.
This application proposes the construction of a hardsurface area to provide three tennis courts and a netball court to be enclosed by 5 metre high powder coated green mesh fencing. The applicants propose to restrict the hours of use of the courts from 9.00am to 7.00pm daily. The courts will not be let out on a commercial basis but the school may allow local groups, such as youth clubs to use the courts.
Background
There have been a number of extensions to the school within the last 10 years, the closest of which is a part single/two storey block which was approved in 1996 (TP/216/96).
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
In response to the public consultation exercise a total of 6 letters of objection were received in response to the public consultation exercise. The central concern was that the tennis courts would lead to noise and disturbance in the vicinity of neighbouring residential properties with the likelihood of balls being hit into rear garden areas and the presence of potentially unsociable children adjacent to rear boundaries, both of which would deter local residents from enjoying their garden areas. Concern was also raised that the 5 metre high fence would be an intrusive feature undermining the present open aspect from the neighbouring dwellings and would afford the opportunity to climb into rear gardens.
UDP Policy
C11 New Educational Facilities C13 Community Use of Educational Facilities
Potential policy issue in respect of impact on neighbouring residential occupiers.
Analysis
Page 17
In principle, the provision of three tennis courts and netball (the school currently does not possess such a facility) court at this site is held to be an acceptable and appropriate use. The courts should prove to be beneficial for the school pupils and would afford accessible sporting and recreational uses for the community at large, therefore, making a positive contribution to health and fitness.
The main concern however, is the siting of the sport facility in a strip of land adjacent to residential properties. At present this portion of land does not have any formal sporting or recreational designation and is instead used as an informal play area for school pupils. In this regard, the loss of this play area is not held to be vital as the school has a significant amount of open space which can be used by school pupils out of class hours.
The comments raised in objection centred around the noise and disturbance that will be associated with the proposed use. In respect to the issue of noise, the objectors contend that the presence of pupils playing tennis would undermine their amenity and jeopardise the enjoyment of the rear garden areas. It is accepted that the development of the courts will lead to a concentration of pupils adjacent to neighbouring gardens and there will likely be a rise in noise levels whilst tennis is being played. However, it has to be noted that the area could be converted to another form of sporting facility, e.g. football pitch, without the benefit of planning permission and would have much the same consequence. In this instance, the users of the courts will be supervised by teachers and the courts are to be surrounded by 5 metre high fencing which should minimise balls flying into neighbouring dwellings. The land in question will no longer be used as an informal play area, where the potential for direct conflict with neighbours from unsociable pupils could be greater as there is likely to be less direct supervision of schoolchildren. The courts may be used as an additional break-time area, although again the children would be supervised. The hours of use proposed for the courts are 9am to 7pm Monday to Friday and from 9am to 1 pm on Saturdays and at no other times. Hence, the activity will only occur primarily during the working day and should not significantly jeopardise neighbouring leisure time. On the issue of people using the fence to gain access to rear gardens, the 5 metre high fence will be located away from the adjoining boundaries, therefore negating this possibility.
Some objection was raised on the grounds that the fencing in particular would ruin the open outlook that neighbours currently enjoy. However, the fence is proposed to be some 25 metres (a distance greater than the Council’s normal back-to-back minimum distance) from the backs of peoples’ properties and will be formed of an open mesh, the combination of which factors are unlikely to be so dominant as to compromise views to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers.
The applicants have argued that this portion of land is the only area that they could use within their large site without compromising existing facilities. The development will enhance these facilities and provide much needed sporting facilities for the benefit of the children at Eastbrook School and for local community groups.
Recommendation
That planning permission be approved subject to the following details:
1. The development shall not be commenced until details of the fencing enclosing the tennis courts have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Page 18 Authority. The approved fencing shall be retained unless the Local Planning Authority gives prior written approval to their removal.
2. The tennis courts shall only be used between the hours of 9am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 1pm on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Public and Bank Holidays.
Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 20 Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 22 AGENDA ITEM 5
Plan: B&C DC/02/00094/FUL Becontree Ward (R) DC/02/00107/FUL
Address: 27 Lodge Avenue, Dagenham 29 Lodge Avenue, Dagenham
Development: Conversion of hip to gable ended roof and formation of rear dormer window
Applicant: Mr Orr & Mr R Lewis
Introduction and Description of Development
The application premises are two, two storey semi-detached houses, located on the eastern side of Lodge Avenue at the junction between Lodge Avenue and Marlborough Road. Both houses have hipped roof designs. The application proposals relate to the erection of a rear dormer window and the conversion of a hipped to gable roof. The rear dormer would be approximately 4.75 metres wide with a flat roof.
Background
These applications were originally agreed under delegated powers in March 2002 subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement that the two property owners simultaneously construct the developments. This document remains unsigned despite a number of reminders including phone calls and letters from this department. A final deadline was set for 15 November, however the agreement has remained unsigned.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
Both adjoining neighbours were been consulted but no response was received.
UDP Policy
H22- Extensions and Alterations, and Appendix 7
Policy issue - Proposed conversion of hipped to gable roof would not fit in with the original character of this pair of semi-detached houses.
Analysis
Policy H22 states that extensions and alterations should be sympathetic in form, detailing and external materials of construction to the character of the existing building, and the area in general wherever seen from the street or other public place. In this instance the proposed conversion of a hipped to gable roof would alter the appearance of the original form and character of the existing roofscape, creating an unbalanced appearance to this pair of semi-detached houses, which are considered to be located in a prominent semi-nodal position. However, if both applicants were to simultaneously build these roof alterations, it is considered that the architectural integrity of the pair of houses would be maintained. Despite the Council’s best endeavours, the completion of the legal agreement has not been secured within a reasonable time scale.
Page 23
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused in both instances for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy H.22 of the UDP as the conversion of a hipped to gable roof would alter the appearance of the original form and character of the existing roofscape, creating an imbalance in the appearance of this pair of semi-detached houses and adversely affecting the visual amenity of the area.
Page 24 Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 26 AGENDA ITEM 6
Plan: D DC/02/00732/FUL Eastbrook Ward (R)
Address: The Farmhouse Tavern P.H. Dagenham Road, Rush Green
Development: Erection of two storey block of 2 no.1 bedroom flats.
Applicant: J T Davies & Sons Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is a parcel of land within the grounds of the Farmhouse Tavern public house, itself within land designated as Metropolitan Green Belt.
The proposal seeks to demolish an existing Nissen Hut which has fallen into a state of disrepair and erect a two storey building of two 1 bedroom flats. The flats will be used as staff accommodation in connection with the pub.
Background
There is no planning history for this property.
Consultations
Adjoining occupiers/publicity
Adjoining land occupiers notified and site notices erected.
Response received from The Millennium Centre, objecting to the development on the basis of inappropriate development within a Green Belt location.
UDP Policy
Strategic Policy I – Green Belt
G2 Appropriate Uses G3 Acceptable Developments G7 Underused or Derelict Land H13 New Residential Development H15 Residential Amenity H16 Internal Design H17 Car Parking
Analysis
Strategic Policy 1 states that the open character of the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB) will be protected and inappropriate development refused. Appropriate and acceptable developments are defined in policies G2 and G3. Policy G2 identifies the appropriate uses within a MGB location being uses that ‘enhance or conserve’ the character of the location, these are supported in principle. Examples of such uses would be those that involve agriculture, horticulture, nature conservation, cemeteries and outdoor recreation facilities that cannot be provided for within urban areas.
Page 27 Adopted UDP policy G3 outlines criteria to be met by developments proposed within the MGB; stating that development will not be permitted, except in very special circumstances if it is not essential and ancillary to the functioning of appropriate uses. Policy G3 further identifies that development will not be permitted if the proposal is out of character with the nature of the green belt by reason of its siting, size, scale and mass.
Following the applied UDP policies proposed development must be assessed on the suitability of its location within the MGB. Under adopted policy no provision is made for new residential development within such a location unless in connection with an approved use; for example workers/managers accommodation tied to an agricultural operation. No supporting information has been included within the application to justify ‘very special circumstances’ where development should be permitted against adopted policy. The dwellings applied for are identified to be in connection with the existing public house, not to be let or sold on the open market, but to be retained for staff use. This does not fall as an acceptable use to the MGB location, whilst the need for said units is unproven, especially given the existing substantial accommodation to the first floor of the existing building.
The submitted plans show intended construction to mirror features of the existing public house building, however it is considered that no acceptable relationship has been achieved between the two, the proposed building appearing as an alien and discordant feature by virtue of its building proportions. Green belt policy consideration aside, the design and appearance of the unit would require substantial revision to fall within the requirements of H13 – New Residential Development. The design requires revision to reflect the proportions of the existing building, resultant construction should then appear either as a totally subservient structure, that is less dominant and not an imitation of the existing building, or as an equal or parallel to the existing building style, structure and form. The issue of design has not been subject to revision due to the substantial MGB policy considerations that remain outstanding.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed construction of two 1 bedroom flats is contrary to strategic Policy 1 and policies G2, G3, G7 and H13 of the Unitary Development Plan, the proposal providing no special circumstances that necessitate construction against adopted policy. The proposed construction would be detrimental to the character of the location and against the central aims of the adopted Metropolitan Green Belt land designation, creating additional construction which achieves a substandard relationship and connection to the surrounding location in terms of land use, building design and form.
Page 28 Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 30 AGENDA ITEM 7
Plan: E DC/02/00519/FUL Goresbrook Ward (A)
Address: The Pipers public house, Amesbury Road, Dagenham
Development: Redevelopment of site to provide 14 one bedroom flats and 44 two bedroom flats and associated landscaping and car parking
Applicant: Fitt and Zimmer Developments Ltd.
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site (0.4 hectares) comprises a substantial part two storey/part single storey public house built in the 1930s located to the south of the junction of Amesbury Road and Gale Street with Woodward Road and Hedgemans Road. The site has frontages onto both Gale Street, from which there is vehicular access to a large car park, and Amesbury Road. The pub is currently vacant and boarded up.
The site is bounded by two storey houses to the east, west and south and by 2½ storey (2 storey with roof accommodation) commercial properties with residential over to the north. Immediately to the north are 3 amenity greens which help provide a pleasant open setting to the junction.
This application relates to the demolition of the existing pub and the redevelopment of the site to provide 58 flats. The proposed buildings would frame the site providing frontages to both Amesbury Road and Gale Street and incorporate a curved prow end to the north. The scheme would be primarily 3 storeys in height rising to 4 storeys fronting the junction. The buildings would be finished in a yellow stock brick and have an off-white render parapet wall to the upper floor, which would be wholly glazed, and a shallow profiled metal roof. The scheme includes two 3 storey ‘fingers’ running into the site. Parking spaces for 44 cars are provided within the site, accessed from Gale Street, together with private amenity areas.
Background
The application as originally submitted provided vehicular access to the site from Amesbury Road. This was changed following advice received by the Traffic and Road Safety Section who expressed concerns regarding the construction of a new access onto Amesbury Road which is a narrow one way road.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers/publicity
The occupiers of 98 neighbouring residential and commercial properties were consulted and the application was advertised on site and in the press. A reconsultation exercise was carried out following the receipt of amended drawings showing the revised access point.
As a result letters were received from the occupiers of 12 neighbouring properties raising the following matters:
Page 31 1. Inappropriateness of the vehicular access from Amesbury Road which would be likely to cause congestion. It would also result in more traffic passing by the nearby Cambell Junior and Infants schools which could have safety implications (on the initial consultation exercise). 2. Inappropriateness of the vehicular access from Gale Street as this is a main road used by emergency vehicles. 3. The height, design and materials of construction are out of keeping with the character of the area. 4. The density of development is excessive and could lead to loss of light and privacy. 5. The number of car parking spaces is insufficient. 6. The car park would be too close to neighbouring gardens. 7. The need for affordable housing should be considered. 8. Boundary fencing should be adequate. 9. The trees on the site should be protected. Others wished to see the removal of trees which are considered to be a nuisance. 10. The construction of the development would cause disruption. b) London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Satisfied with proposals. c) Director of Housing and Health – Becontree Housing Office
No objections. d) Director of Housing and Health – Housing Strategy
Supportive of the application as the site in its present state has attracted anti- social behaviour including fly-tipping and the burning of waste. e) Environment Agency
No comments. f) English Heritage –Archaeology
The site is close to an archaeology priority area as defined in the UDP. The site is on the gravel terrace approximately 500 metres from the edge of the alluvial floodplain of the River Thames. Such a location has been shown by archaeological research to have been a favoured location for settlement throughout the prehistoric period. Recent excavations within the alluvial floodplain have revealed an extensive network of late Bronze Age wooden trackways built to exploit the rich marshland hunting grounds from the higher dry ground of the terrace. Chance finds and aerial photographs of the nearby Castle Green suggest a network of prehistoric tracks existed and a small Roman cremation cemetery, indicative of a nearby settlement was recently recorded to the south of Goresbrook Road.
The proposed development may therefore affect remains of archaeological importance and it is recommended that a condition be imposed on any permission granted to secure a programme of archaeological investigation.
Page 32 g) Metropolitan Police Service - Crime Prevention Unit
A number of detailed suggestions made. UDP Policy
H.1 Housing Supply H.4 Low Cost Housing H.6 Housing for People with Disabilities H.8 Dwelling Mix H.13-17 New Residential Development Standards C.4 Retention of Existing Community Facilities and Public Buildings Interim Parking Standards adopted January 2002.
Policy issue – amenity space standards.
Analysis
The development will result in the permanent loss of the public house which could be construed as being a community use for the purposes of policy C4. However, the premises have remained vacant for a considerable period of time and the majority of respondents have not raised exception to the principle of the redevelopment of the site only to the detailed scheme. In view of the requirement under policy H1 to encourage the development of additional dwellings through redevelopment in order to satisfy the demand for housing in London, it is considered that, on balance, there are no objections in principle to the proposed use of the site.
The scheme provides a strong street frontage and relates satisfactorily to adjoining buildings. The design is modern and comprises mainly glazing to the second floor and the whole of the third floor to reduce the perceived bulk of the building. The curved end is also fully glazed and, together with the low pitched metal roof, will give a strikingly modern appearance to the development when viewed from the north. Although the development would appear different in design and its choice of materials from the predominantly 2 storey red brick housing surrounding, it is not considered that there is any requirement to slavishly replicate the design of the adjoining properties. Neither is it considered that the scale of the development would be overbearing or inappropriate for this location. Indeed as the roof pitch is so low the three storey building would only be approximately 0.4-0.7 of a metre above the height of the neighbouring houses. This is lower than the ridge of the public house. Moreover the four storey element would only have a ridge height of between 11.8 and 12.4 metres which would not be significantly higher than the commercial properties in Gale Street and Woodward Road which have extremely deep roofspaces.
In terms of residential standards the development provides a variety of flat types and sizes and all dwellings comply with habitable floorspace standards. The development makes provision for 44 parking spaces which is a ratio of 0.76 of a space per dwelling. Whilst this is below UDP standards the proposal is considered to comply with the standards contained in the Interim Parking Standards agreed earlier this year which superseded the adopted UDP policy. The new standards set a maxima of 1 parking space per dwelling in this location and state that in assessing the exact requirement consideration needs to be given to the characteristics of the surrounding area including the existence of public transport facilities. In this instance the site is only approximately
Page 33 200 metres from Becontree station and is adjacent to a bus route and therefore the parking provided is considered to be adequate for a flatted scheme of this nature. The development also makes provision for 30 cycle spaces contained within secure store buildings under the flats.
UDP policy requires 20 square metres of private amenity space per 1 bedroom flat and 40 square metres per 2 bedroom flat. This equates to 2,040 m2 in total. In this instance the scheme provides 660m2 of private amenity space, 610m2 of semi-private space to the front garden areas and 112m2 of private balcony space making a total of 1,382m2 or 68% of the UDP standard. Whilst the amenity space is less than UDP standards it is considered that the development makes good provision for a landscaped strip to the front to provide a green setting for the scheme. Moreover, it is contended that, provided the internal space is well landscaped and provides usable space with appropriate seating areas, there will be sufficient space for occupiers of this flatted development. The site is also only located approximately 350 metres from Parsloes Park, which is designated as metropolitan open land. Finally, the Director of Housing and Health has identified a need to replace the fencing around the 3 amenity greens adjacent to the site as the existing fencing is old and damaged. It has been suggested that one metre high powder coated fencing similar to that recently erected at Kilsby Walk would be the most appropriate and an estimate of £31,210 has been provided. The developer has agreed to fund the costs of these works and, if permission is granted, this would need to form part of a Section 106 agreement. The improvements to these amenity areas, which would help brighten the local environment, could be considered to partly compensate for the relative lack of green areas within the site.
Although no details have been submitted with the application, it is understood that the scheme is likely to be developed by a housing association. However, to safeguard the Council’s position, if permission is granted, Housing Strategy have confirmed that it would be necessary to ensure that 35% of the units are affordable and in this case should comprise a mixture of key worker and general needs for rent.
The scheme now ensures that all ground floor units are designed to Lifetime Homes standards and two have been designed as wheelchair units.
With regard to other matters raised by neighbours:
1. As previously stated it is considered that the formation of the vehicular access from Gale Street is acceptable and, being located 60 metres from the main junction, should not result in any adverse highway conditions. It is pointed out that the new access is only 17 metres from the existing access to the car park.
2. The density of the development, using the method of calculation given in the UDP, is 133 dwellings per hectare. Whilst it is accepted that this is higher than the suggested range in the UDP of 40-80 dwellings per hectare, consideration also needs to be given to more recent Government policy seeking to raise the intensity of development , particularly at places with good public transport accessibility. It should also be borne in mind that the density standards are only supplementary planning guidance (SPG), which has less weight than formal policy in the UDP. Moreover, the SPG states that density standards should only be used as a guideline and that density should be seen as one of a series of design and layout standards used to determine whether a development is acceptable.
Page 34
3. It is not considered that the development, by virtue of its siting, scale and orientation to neighbouring dwellings, would have any significant adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings. Balconies are provided to many of the dwellings including all the units above ground level facing the street. However, with the exception of the balconies at third floor level, the balconies are only about 500mm in depth and therefore only reasonably useful for the placing of pot plants etc and could not be used as a seating area. Notwithstanding this it is not considered that the provision of balconies facing towards the front of adjoining houses would have any appreciable adverse impact on privacy, particularly as the neighbouring houses would be over 21 metres from the development.
4. The car parking spaces are located close to the rear boundaries of neighbouring gardens but this is not a materially different situation from the existing pub car park and should not have any serious adverse affect on residential amenity. However, it is considered prudent to require by condition that a protective barrier be installed to protect the adjacent boundary fence.
5. With regard to the adequacy of the boundary fencing this can be made the subject of a condition if permission is granted.
6. The scheme would result in the loss of some trees on the site but allows for the retention of, inter alia, the two large horse chestnut trees on the southern boundary, although care would need to be taken to protect these trees during the course of construction. Whilst it is acknowledged that these trees can be a nuisance through the dropping of trees and conkers it is considered that the retention of mature trees should generally be encouraged for their beauty and ecological value.
7. If permission is granted a condition can be imposed restricting the hours of construction.
In conclusion it is considered that the scheme is well designed and would make good use of an accessible site which has been vacant for some time and has suffered from fly tipping/posting and graffiti. The relative lack of amenity space is not considered to be critical in a scheme involving flatted units as it is unusual for large numbers of residents to wish to sit in the open at any one time. It is, however, considered important that the areas provided (which are south facing) are high quality and inviting. In this respect the submitted drawings outline areas of hard and soft landscaping incorporating benches which have the potential to provide pleasant meeting spaces for residents. On balance it is considered that the merits of the scheme are sufficient to outweigh any policy objections and that the development would help address housing need in the area.
Recommendation
That, subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the cost of replacement fencing to the 3 adjacent amenity greens to the north and to a requirement that a minimum of 35% of the units be made affordable for general needs renting/accommodation for key workers, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. F.1 Details of Soft Landscaping
Page 35
2. F.2 Implementation of Proposed Soft Landscaping
3. F.4 Details of Hard Landscaping
4. I.6 Completion of Parking Areas
5. No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until details of the secure cycle stores shown on drawing number 20269/120D have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme implemented.
6. M.4 Hours of Construction Work
7. O.1 Details of Dustbin Enclosures
8. P.1 Details of Boundary Treatment
9. Q.1 Details/Samples of Facing Materials
10. All ground floor dwellings shall be built to lifetime home standards in accordance with the specifications set out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
11. All parts of the development, including the car parks, all external circulation areas and the vehicular access to the site, shall be designed to be accessible to people with disabilities in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
12. T.1 Programme of Excavations
13. The car park area shall not be used until details of a means to prevent cars from damaging the southern boundary fence have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme implemented.
14. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until all redundant footway crossings adjacent to the site have been reinstated into the footway in accordance with details to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
15. Before any works hereby permitted are commenced and until all such works are completed:
a) all trees to be retained shall be protected by secure, stout exclusion fencing erected at a minimum distance equivalent to the branch spread of the trees and in accordance with BS.5837;
b) any works connected with the approved scheme within the branch spread of the trees shall be by hand only. No materials, supplies, plant or machinery shall be stored, parked or allowed access beneath the branch spread or within the exclusion fencing. Any trees that are damaged or felled during construction work must be replaced with semi mature trees of the same or similar species.
Page 36 Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 38 AGENDA ITEM 8
Plan: F DC/02/00808/FUL Abbey Ward (R)
Address: 23 Cranleigh Gardens, Barking
Development: Formation of room in the roof involving conversion from hip to gable end and construction of rear dormer window
Applicant: Mr K Barnes
Introduction and Description of Development
The application property comprises a two storey end of terrace dwelling located on the northern side of Cranleigh Gardens in Barking. The applicant proposes to create a loft room involving the conversion of the existing hipped roof to a gable end and the erection of a rear dormer window. The dormer window would be 7 metres wide and 2.15 metres high and be finished with a flat roof.
The adjoining property to the west of the subject site is also an end of terrace dwelling and is also finished with a hipped roof. The distance between the first floor flank walls of these dwellings varies from approximately 2.5 metres at the rear to approximately 4.5 metres at the front.
Works include the removal of an existing redundant chimney from the side of the dwelling and an extension of an existing chimney in height.
The rear dormer would be finished in materials to match the existing tiled roof.
Background
None.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
No comments were received.
UDP Policy
H22. Extensions and Alterations
Policy issue – unsympathetic alterations
Analysis
The proposed loft conversion would involve alterations to the roof line (i.e. hip to gable) and the erection of a large rear dormer window. It is considered to be poor design to allow hip to gable conversions on visually prominent buildings, particularly in an area where end of terrace dwellings are mostly finished with hipped roofs. All end of terrace dwellings on this side of Cranleigh Gardens are finished with hipped roofs.
Page 39 It is considered that the proposed changes to the shape of the roof would appear bulky and adversely affect the symmetry of the roofscape, especially in relation to the neighbouring end of terrace dwelling (25 Cranleigh Gardens). Moreover there is no justification in this case that the alterations are required to provide the necessary headroom for the staircase to access the roof space, as the property has a central staircase.
The dormer window is also considered to relate poorly to the existing house. At 7 metres in width it would dominate the rear elevation of the building and relate poorly to the windows of the original dwelling.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy H.22 of the Unitary Development Plan as the hip to gable conversion would be unsympathetic in form to the design of the existing terrace and the dormer window would unduly dominate the rear elevation and relate poorly to the windows of the original dwelling.
Page 40 Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 42 AGENDA ITEM 9
Plan: G DC/02/00666/FUL Village Ward (R)
Address: 7 Royal Parade, Church Street, Dagenham
Development: Change of use to A3 (Food and Drink)
Applicant: Mr M M N Ansari
Introduction and Description of Development
The application premises comprise the ground floor retail unit in a parade of 11 premises located on the north side of Church Street opposite Grays Court. To the west of the property is the junction with Charlotte Road, whilst to the east is the junction of Church Street and Siviter Way. Above the retail unit residential accommodation is provided.
At present the ground floor shop is vacant and this application seeks planning permission for the use of the ground floor shop for Class A3 (food and drink) purposes.
Background
None.
Supporting Statement
The following statement has been submitted by the applicant in support of the proposal:
“To the best of my knowledge three types of shops on this site were newsagents/sweet shop, hardware and mobile/gift shop, but all these shops couldn’t get sufficient trade to make it work. All these shops were closed soon after their opening due to no trade at all and the site remained closed for almost one and a half years as no retail was getting progress in the parade.
In my opinion a fried chicken would do well in this location and will serve the public well. As I have 12 years catering experience, so I hope that fried chicken would do the business and there will be no chances to close this shop again.”
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 4 adjoining commercial premises were consulted, but no response was received. However, 2 letters were received from the Secretary of the Dagenham Village Residents Association and No. 3 Royal Parade. Both letters objected to the proposal on the grounds that there are enough hot food shops in the area already. In addition it was considered that the proposal would adversely affect existing hot food traders in the area, whilst resulting in an increase in noise, litter and unruly behaviour to the detriment of the area and the needs of the local residents. b) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection
Page 43 No comments received.
UDP Policy
S.6 Local Centres and Local Parades S.8 Food and Drink Uses G.32 Litter
Policy Issue
More than 30% of frontage in shopping parade being in non-retail use and the creation of a significant break in the retail frontage.
Analysis
Policy S.6 states that within Local Shopping Centres the Council will allow 30% of the retail frontage in designated parades to be in non-retail use. In this instance the existing percentage of the retail frontage in non-retail use is approximately 48.9%, which is substantially above the threshold allowed by policy. As a result of the proposal this would increase by a further 7.5% to approximately 56.4%, which would be nearly double the level normally permitted. Furthermore if consent was granted the proposed development would result in a row of 3 non-retail uses which, it is considered, would create a significant break in the defined retail frontage.
Members are aware though that when the UDP was initially adopted policy S6 did allow exceptions to be made where it can be shown that the unit is no longer viable for retail purposes and that it has remained unlet for a substantial period of time, despite attempts to let it on reasonable terms.
However, at the meeting held on 12th February 1996 a policy report entitled "A Review of Policies Affecting Local Shopping Parades in the south of the Borough" was presented and approved, which amended the designation of 1-11 Royal Parade, Church Street to a primary retail parade. As a consequence of this, the flexibility within policy S.6, which would have allowed an exception to be considered has been revoked.
This though does not mean that the length of time a unit has been vacant should not be taken into account as it does represent a material consideration. In light of this the supporting statement submitted by the applicant is noted and Business Rates have confirmed that their records show the unit in question has been empty since March 2001. However, this has to be judged against the fact that the proposal is contrary to Council policy and would create an unacceptable break in the retail frontage.
With regard to the comments received as a response to the consultation process these are noted. As to the issues relating specifically to noise, car parking, traffic and litter in the area, it is difficult to prove that these problems would be made materially worse as a result of this proposal. Whilst there are existing Class A3 uses in the area competition is not a material consideration, which can be taken into account. However, as the proposed use is contrary to policy S.6 it is accepted that there is an over dominance of non-retail uses in the immediate vicinity at present.
Overall the proposed development is contrary to policy S.6 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and whilst the length of time that the unit has been vacant is noted
Page 44 this is not considered to represent a sufficient enough reason in this instance for an exception to Council policy to be made.
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 the parade being in non-retail use, thereby creating a substantial break in the retail frontage thereby having a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the parade.
Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 46 Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 48 AGENDA ITEM 10
Plan: H DC/02/00511/FUL Whalebone Ward (R)
Address: 13-17 Station Road, Chadwell Heath
Development: Use of ground floor shops as wine bar/bistro (Class A3)
Applicant: Chanle Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application property comprise 3 small shop units situated on the east side of Station Road in a row of 9 shops, which forms part of a larger parade of 18 shops. The area is a mix of commercial and residential development, with the junction to Herbert Gardens, a short cul de sac immediately to the south, whilst to the north is the Eva Hart Public House and the High Road. The application premises has a rear yard area, which is accessed via a private road, which runs adjacent to the side of No.1 Herbert Gardens. Above the application property is space for a self contained residential flat,
The 3 units are currently derelict and this proposal seeks planning permission for a change of use from Class A1 to Class A3 (wine bar/bistro). The rear yard area would be used for car parking only.
Background
Planning permission was granted in October 2000 for the rebuilding and extension of the ground floor premises to provide two retail units with a 2 bedroom self contained flat above (DC/00/00497/FUL). When this proposal was considered it was noted that the ground floor units whilst vacant and derelict were formerly occupied by Wag Bennetts & Son who sold motor vehicle spares.
Whilst the works associated with the 2 bedroom flat appears to be under construction, little work has been carried out on the ground floor units, which at present have been gutted and boarded up.
Supporting Statement
A supporting statement was submitted by the applicant’s agents and forms an appendix to this report.
Publicity
Details of the application were advertised on site in accordance with Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, but no replies were received.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 36 adjoining residential and commercial properties were consulted and as a result 8 letters were received objecting to the proposal on the grounds that there are too many similar uses in the immediate area already, car
Page 49 parking and traffic is a problem and this proposal would make matters worse and that the proposal would lead to an increase in litter and noise disturbance. b) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection
No comments received.
UDP Policy
S.5 Chadwell Heath S.8 Food and Drink Uses G.32 Litter and Flytipping
Policy Issue
More than 60% of retail frontage in secondary shopping area being in non-retail use and use would create a significant break in the retail frontage.
Analysis
Policy S.6 designates No. 1-33 Station Road as a secondary shopping area within Chadwell Heath with the level of retail frontage permitted to be in non-retail use restricted to 60%. In this respect the current percentage of retail frontage in non-retail use is 49.2% and as a result of this proposal this would increase to 61.4%. Whilst it is accepted that this would only be marginally above the level permitted, the proposed development would result in 7 premises from No. 9-21 Station Road being in non retail use. Of these premises 9-19 would be in a continuous block with No.21 only being separated from the other units by the entrance to Herberts Gardens. As a result of this it is considered that the development would result in a substantial and unacceptable break in the retail frontage of the parade.
The applicant was made aware of the policy issue and as a consequence the attached supporting statement was submitted. In light of this it is accepted that policy only states that non retail uses will ‘normally’ be restricted to 60% and that the premises at present are in an unacceptable condition. However, whilst on the surface it may be desirable to grant planning permission for an application which would bring back into use a derelict and vacant unit, this by itself is not considered sufficient reason in this instance to allow an exception to be made to UDP policy even if this would result in the building having to remain in its current form if planning permission was refused.
The applicant has also confirmed that the ground floor units have been advertised for 9 months with no success apart from the current interest for its use for Class A3 purposes. Whilst further details were requested on this matter in respect of how and where the units were advertised and at what rents, no additional information has been received by the applicant.
The applicant has also confirmed that should planning permission be granted they would agree to enter into the standard Section 106 Agreement in respect of a contribution towards litter collection and that an adequate ventilation system would be required.
Page 50 With regard to the comments received as a response to the consultation process these are noted. As to the issues revolving around noise, car parking, traffic and litter in the area, it is difficult to prove that these problems would be made materially worse as a result of this proposal. Whilst there are existing Class A3 uses in the area, Members are aware that the current planning system has no remit to specifically limit the number of businesses within a certain area, which fall within a designated use class. As such whilst local residents feel there are already too many class A3 (food and drink) uses within the area this is not a material consideration which can be taken into account. However, as the proposed use is contrary to policy S.5 it is accepted that there is an over dominance of non-retail uses as a whole already situated in the immediate vicinity at present.
Overall the proposed development is contrary to policy S.5 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and for the reasons set out above it is considered that there is insufficient reasons for allowing an exception to Council policy in this instance.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed change of use is contrary to Policy S.5 of the Unitary Development Plan, as it would result in more than 60% of the frontage of the parade being in non-retail use, thereby creating a substantial break in the retail frontage thereby having a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the parade.
Page 51 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 52 Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 54 Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 56 AGENDA ITEM 11
Plan: I DC/02/00705/FUL Abbey Ward (R)
Address: 39 Harpour Road, Barking
Development: Retention of rear storage building
Applicant: Mr Rai
Introduction and Description of Development
The application property is a mid terrace house facing north-east onto Harpour Road. The property has an existing conservatory which is the full width of the property and 3m deep. This application relates to the retention of a single storey outbuilding at the rear of the back garden. This building is 4.1m from the existing conservatory, and is 3.7m deep, 5.2m wide and 3m high. The building has a flat roof and the front elevation has a large window and door. This leaves a garden area of 21.32m2.
Background
This matter was brought to the attention of the Council following a neighbour complaint.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
An objection letter was received from an adjoining occupier who raised the following concerns:
1) The outbuilding has been poorly constructed. 2) The outbuilding is blocking light from his rear garden. 3) The outbuilding may be used to residential purposes in the future.
Other comments made in this letter relate to the existing conservatory, and therefore has no influence over this application.
UDP Policy
H22 and Appendix 7- Extensions and Alterations
Policy issue- The outbuilding is considered to be an over-development on the plot.
Analysis
The proposal is contrary to policy H22 and appendix 7 as the garden space has been reduced to less than 40m2 and less than 8m deep, by the construction of the outbuilding and is considered to be over-development of a small plot. The gardens to the rear of the properties on Harpour Road are small, for example the original size of the garden at 39 without any extension would only have been approximately 55m2. Since the conservatory was built as ‘permitted’ development the area left is approximately 42m2, which is just above the requirement set out in policy H15. The area left once the outbuilding had been built was approximately 23.5m2. This is felt to be creating a sub-
Page 57 standard outdoor amenity area for a 3-bedroom property, which is most likely to be used for family dwelling accommodation.
The concerns raised by the adjoining neighbour have been considered and although the storage building may cause an element of shadowing at the end of the day, it is felt that cannot be sufficient reason for a refusal in this case. As for the workmanship and quality of the building work, both of these issues are not controlled by planning and therefore can also not be considered reasons for refusal. With regard to the use of the storage building for living accommodation this becomes immaterial if the application is refused. If members do not agree with the recommendation a limiting condition can be imposed.
In conclusion it is felt that the outbuilding has created an amenity area that is not only below 40m2, but is also less than the minimum required depth of 8m. This creates a garden space that is considered too small for a 3 bedroom property.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposal is contrary to policy H22 of the Unitary Development Plan in that the outbuilding is considered to be an over-development on the plot, which has reduced the garden area to less than 40 m2 and less that 8m in depth.
Note: If Members agree the recommendation Members are advised that enforcement action will be taken to secure the discontinuance of the unauthorised use.
Page 58 Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 60 AGENDA ITEM 12
Plan: J DC/02/00771/FUL Eastbrook Ward (R)
Address: 107 Gorseway, Rush Green
Development: Formation of room in roof involving construction of side and rear dormer windows
Applicant: Mr and Mrs P Maskell
Introduction and Description of Development
The application property is a semi detached house facing west onto Gorseway. The property has an existing rear extension, which was granted permission in 1998. The proposed development is a combination of a side and rear ‘wrap around’ dormer to create space for the formation of a room in the roof. The dormer is 2.1m high at the rear and 2.5m high at the side. It’s overall width is 5.1m and up to 3.5m of the dormer is visible from the front elevation.
Background
A single storey rear extension was granted planning permission in 1998. (98/00460/TP)
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupier
No comments received.
UDP Policy
H22 Extensions and Alterations – Appendix 7
Policy issue in respect of side dormer window.
Analysis
The proposal is in conflict with policy H22 and Appendix 7, of the UDP which states that dormer windows should, other than in exceptional circumstances, face the rear of the dwelling and be set in from roof edges.
In this circumstance it is felt that the side dormer window would detrimentally affect the character of the building and the pair of houses of which it forms part. Although the dormer window is relatively modest in size it is considered that it would intrude upon the linear appearance of the existing roofscape and represent an incongruous feature which would harm the homogeneity of the pattern of semi detached properties in this part of the Gorseway. The applicants have not shown any exceptional circumstances to suggest that Council policy should be relaxed. Moreover, the dormer window in the rear roof slope is not set in substantially enough from all roof edges.
Further along Gorseway properties 99 and 101 have had their hipped roofs converted to gables. Property number 99 was granted permission in 1988 and therefore this was
Page 61 before the current UDP was produced. The application at number 101 was granted permission in early 2002 under the proviso that this development matched the design at number 99. The applicants agent was requested to contact the Planning Section to discuss alternative designs, but no reply was received.
In conclusion, it is considered that the application is contrary to UDP policy regarding dormer windows and would have an adverse impact on the application property and the street scene generally.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposal is contrary to policy H22 of the Unitary Development Plan in that the proposed side and rear dormer windows would appear as discordant and intrusive features in the roofscape and have an adverse affect on the appearance of the building and the visual amenity of the area.
Page 62 Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 64 AGENDA ITEM 13
Plan: K DC/02/00745/FUL Valance Ward (R)
Address: 61 Warrington Road, Dagenham
Development: Erection of first floor rear extension
Applicant: C Bentley
Introduction and Description of Development
The application property is a mid terrace house facing onto an amenity green on Warrington Road. This application relates to a first floor rear extension to provide accommodation for a disabled child. A lift is to be incorporated into the extension to enable access from the ground up to the first floor. The property has an existing single storey rear extension built in 1981 and a rear dormer window, which was granted permission and built in 2000.
The first floor extension is 3.7m deep, 5m wide and has a total height of 5.6m. This extension will have a flat roof. This extension follows the footprint of the existing rear extension.
Background
A previous planning application (DC/00/00478/FUL) was submitted free of charge, as it was a development for a disabled person. This application related to the dormer window and the formation of a room in the roof to be used for the parents, whilst the former parents bedroom would be fitted with a lift from the lounge and toilet and bath facilities for use by the disabled person. The dormer window has been completed but is not thought the lift access has been installed.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
No comments received. b) Director of Housing and Health- Becontree Area Office.
No objection.
UDP Policy
H22 – Extensions and Alterations, Appendix 7.
Policy Issue – Rear extension will cause overshadowing of the neighbouring properties and has flat roof
Analysis
In relation to the first floor rear extension, it is noted that it would have an unacceptable impact on light and outlook on the neighbours at 59 and 63 Warrington Road, as it
Page 65 extends outside the 45 degree angle from the nearest corner of each of the neighbouring properties.
The proposed development is to be used for disabled accommodation and will incorporate a lift to allow access from the ground to the first floor. Access into the existing first floor bathroom via a pulley system from this new bedroom is also proposed. However a previous planning application was received in 2000 for a loft conversion incorporating a rear dormer window. This application was to create a room in the roof and therefore a bedroom on the first floor could be used for the disabled person. As part of this application access via a lift from the front living area on the ground floor up to the first floor was outlined. Therefore it would appear that suitable accommodation for the disabled person can already been provided within the existing fabric of the building.
In some cases policy can be relaxed with regard to disabled applications, however in this case the property has been extended to it’s capacity and the extension proposed is totally contrary to policy. It would seem that the previous application could provide for the family needs in this respect. Whilst it is understood that the current scheme results in a much larger room and bathroom which would be preferable to the original, it is not felt that this is sufficient to warrant the policy being ignored.
The extension also has a flat roof and policy requires that a pitched roof be provided to make the design more sympathetic. This could have been done had we been minded to approve the application but I the circumstances must form part of the reason for refusal.
Recommendation
That planning permission should be refused for the following reason:
1 The proposed development is contrary to policy H22 of the Unitary Development Plan as it will cause loss of daylight to the neighbouring properties and
2 Is unsympathetically designed with a flat roof.
Page 66 Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 68 AGENDA ITEM 14
Plan: L DC/02/00789/OUT Eastbury Ward (A)
Address: 145-207 Bevan Avenue, Barking
Development: Outline Application: Erection of 3 Storey buildings to provide hostel for homeless people comprising 24 one bedroom flats, 15 two bedroom flats and 5 three bedroom flats. Erection of 2/3 storey building to provide housing office and health centre on the site of 145-207 Bevan Avenue.
Applicant: Look Ahead Housing and Care Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprises a portion of land to the west of Lodge Avenue, accessed via Bevan Avenue and abutting the railway to the north. The site currently consists of a number of two storey terraces in form of a former elderly persons’ sheltered housing unit incorporating 24 bedsit flats, 6 one bedroom bungalows and a meeting hall, built approximately 35-40 years ago. The sheltered housing use was discontinued because the flats became increasingly difficult to let to elderly people in Barking & Dagenham, primarily as they comprise small bedsits, with no lift to the upper floor units. The flats were not considered suitable for modernisation on the grounds of their basic design and the cost of conversion, coupled with the availability of better quality sheltered housing elsewhere in the Borough. The flats were de-designated as sheltered housing in April 2000. At that time 11 flats were vacant, and 4 of these had been unlet for more than 18 months. The remaining elderly tenants were transferred to more suitable accommodation within the Borough. On de-designation it was possible to let all the void flats to other applicants from the Housing Register and to those who were homeless. This was not seen as a long term use in view of the unmodernised condition of the properties and the rising expectations of housing applicants. The flats are currently vacant.
The outline application proposes the redevelopment of the site to provide:
• An Area Housing Office for LBBD and a Health Centre for the Barking Primary Care Trust, in a single building which will be owned by the Council. The Housing Office will enable services to be delivered locally, as part of the Community Housing Partnership approach agreed by the Council. The housing office will also include the staff of the Homeless Persons' Unit (HPU). The Health Centre will include the local GP practice (comprising 2 General Practitioners, 1 Nurse Practitioner and 1 Practise Nurse) that is currently based in Lodge Avenue. The Health Centre will also incorporate a crèche for 15 children.
• A supported housing scheme consisting of 44 units of temporary accommodation for homeless households, along with staff accommodation and communal facilities including a children’s' play area and a laundry. The housing will be owned and managed by Look Ahead Housing & Care, but all residents will be homeless applicants referred by the Council's HPU.
The application for a mix of 1-3 storey buildings reserves matters of siting, external appearance, design, means of access and landscaping.
Page 69 The residents will be people who have presented themselves as homeless to the HPU either during normal office hours or through out of hours emergency procedures, and for whom the Council appears to have a statutory duty to provide accommodation. The accommodation at Bevan Avenue will be used to provide short stay temporary accommodation while investigations are made into each applicant's circumstances by HPU staff to confirm whether the Council has a legal responsibility to assist. Approximately two thirds of the residents are expected to be families with children. The remainder will be young single people who are considered to be vulnerable and at risk, or older single people or couples in similar circumstances.
The range of accommodation at Bevan Avenue will be designed to suit this mix in self contained flatlets, with 24 hour staff cover to provide supervision and support.
Where the Council accepts that it has a legal duty to provide accommodation, it is expected that alternative provision will be arranged elsewhere in the Borough within 4 - 8 weeks. Where the Council does not accept such a duty, the resident will be required to leave the accommodation, either to make their own arrangements or to move to the area of another local authority that has accepted that it has a statutory duty to assist.
The applicants propose that between 36 and 38 people will be based at the Council’s new Area Housing Office on the site and a further 10 will form part of the Homeless Persons Unit based at Bevan Avenue, including the management of the hostel (at least 2 staff will be on site 24 hours). Some 29 car parking spaces are proposed on site. The applicants have also stated that they envisage pedestrian access to the Health Centre and the Council Office would be afforded directly off Lodge Avenue.
Background
None.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
A total of 18 letters of objection were received in response to the public consultation exercise alongside 2 petitions comprising some 275 and 34 signatures. The central concern raised in objection was that the site was formerly for the benefit of elderly people within the Borough and they appear to have been moved out with little regard for the previous occupiers and the surrounding residents. Residents raised concern that locating a hostel in the area would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring quality of life, expressing fears that crime and unsocial behaviour may rise affecting the current quiet setting, particularly given the number of flats proposed and the associated numbers and type of new residents who would unlikely have any feel for the area. A number of objectors proposed what they viewed as more suitable locations for such a facility such as Barking Reach and the Gascoigne Estate. Another major concern was that the development would give rise to additional traffic congestion and parking problems in the vicinity, notably as a result of the offices and health centre proposed. One objector raised the issue that the scale of the development would lead to a loss of privacy and daylight to adjoining dwellings. b) Traffic and Road Safety Section
Page 70
Application is acceptable in principle although applicant would be required to consult the railway authorities on any development adjacent to the train line. c) London Fire Safety
Satisfied with the proposals. d) Thames Water
No objection. e) Environment Agency
No response. f) Metropolitan Police
No response. g) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Health
No response.
UDP Policy
H7 Special Needs Housing H13 New Residential Development C2 Premises for Facilities for the Community
Potential policy issue in respect of impact of development on neighbouring occupiers.
Analysis
The new temporary accommodation is required by the Council as part of a strategy to end the use of costly and poor quality bed and breakfast accommodation for families, as required by Central Government by April 2004, in response to a recent steep increase in the number of homeless applicants. At present, the Council is making full use of the 34 rooms provided at a hostel in Boundary Road, Barking and currently places 70 individuals/families in Bed and Breakfast accommodation. The proposed development would afford the Council the opportunity to locate temporary homeless people in secure and quality accommodation. The Homeless Persons Unit would run alongside the hostel providing management support and also as base for Council employees within that team. The office accommodation is being sought to provide an additional and localised facility for Council tenants within the Borough and will draw from existing Council employees and new staff. The proposed Health Centre will be run under the auspices of the Primary Care Trust allowing 2 GP’s to relocate from their existing premises on Lodge Avenue whilst also providing a more comprehensive range of health facilities in the area.
Hence, in terms of the facilities provided via this application, it is considered that an identified need within the Borough is being met, particularly in respect of the new hostel
Page 71 provision. Moreover, the modern health facility and crèche will be a benefit to the community at large.
However, in assessing planning applications of this nature it is vital that proposals would have no significant adverse impact on nearby residential occupiers.
Dealing firstly with the traffic implications of this proposal, the plans show that existing access to the site would be maintained off Bevan Avenue. A number of objectors expressed the opinion that the development would lead to an increase in vehicle congestion in the area of Bevan Avenue to the detriment of the existing residents. The combination of the offices and the health centre would, according the Council’s Interim Parking Standards, require some 12 parking spaces, a total of 4 and 8 required respectively. The applicants propose to have up to 29 parking spaces on site. There are no guidelines associated with people in hostel accommodation, however, given their particular situation they are unlikely to comprise a significant, if any, number of car owners. Therefore, the development is fully compliant with the Interim Parking Standard requirements, providing more than a sufficient number of spaces for both employees and visitors and any take up of parking spaces by new residents.
The central concern raised in objection regards the displacement of the previous, elderly residents and the influx of a large number homeless people. A large number of neighbours felt that the temporary homeless would have an adverse effect on the surrounding residential area and its residents, citing a potential rise in crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour and other aspects of general noise and disturbance. Whilst it is appreciated that the level of activity associated with 44 flats will be greater than the existing vacant units, and probably more so than would have been the case with the 30 units for the elderly, there is little evidence to suggest that the occupiers would necessarily cause more disturbance to existing occupiers than any other type of neighbour. Of course, ‘problem neighbours’ can cause unwarranted annoyance and distress but they can be found in any residential street, whether social or private, wherein anti-social and criminal behaviour falls under the remit of the legal services. In this instance, the hostel will be under 24-hour supervision and accordingly there will be a greater degree of control over the occupants of the site than there would be elsewhere, hopefully nullifying perceived and real concerns.
In respect to the matters of objection relating to loss of light and outlook, this outline application does not specify the siting of the proposed buildings, although the size of the site does allow for 2/3 storey buildings in locations that do not detract form neighbourly enjoyment of their living space.
In conclusion, this development will provide new and quality accommodation for those most in need of housing in Barking and Dagenham. The scheme will also establish a new housing office for the benefit of existing Council tenants in this part of the Borough, offering them an improved and localised service whilst also establishing a new Health Centre. The scale of the development can be accommodated within the confines of this site and it should make a positive contribution towards well being of the Borough generally.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
Page 72 1. C1 Reserved Matters
2. C2 Submission of Details
3. C3 Commencement
4. G1 Tree Survey
5. I8 Vehicle Parking (Outline)
6. Cycle stands shall be installed at the premises in a position and of a type to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
7. M4 Hours of Construction Work
8. O1 Details of Dustbin Enclosures
9. P1 Details of Boundary Treatment
10. R1 Ramped Access
Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 74 Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 76 AGENDA ITEM 15
Plan: M DC/02/00801/FUL Thames Ward (A)
Address: Barking Business Centre, 25 Thames Road, Barking
Development: Erection of infill extension to existing building and erection of new building (1632m2) for B1 (light industrial) use
Applicant: Capital On Site Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is an industrial site on the northern side of Thames Road. The site is made up of small industrial units, located around a central yard, which is used for car parking. These existing units have permission for B1, B2 and B8 uses. The proposed development is a small infill extension to an existing building and a new building. The infill development is 6.5m wide and 22m deep. The roof will match the existing roof with regard to height, however the centre section has a shallower pitch. This infill section will become part of Unit 6. The front elevation of the building is to include a roller shuttered entrance, small exit door and vertical sheeting. The rear elevation contains a single exit. The plans note that materials will be matched to the existing buildings.
The proposed building is 44m wide and 23m deep and has an overall height of 7.4m. The roof has been designed to match the roof of the existing buildings and has a double pitch. This building replaces two smaller units. The existing exit and entrance into unit 5 will be blocked to create a separate unit 4. The northern elevation of this building will contain 4 fire exits and the southern elevation (facing into the courtyard) will contain 4 roller shutter doors. As before the materials used will be matched to the existing buildings. The proposed use class for both new developments will be B1: Light Industrial.
Background
Planning permission was granted in 1992 (TP/00241/92/1/2) for the use of the existing units as B1, B2 and B8.
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
No comments received.
UDP Policy
Policy E1 – Employment Development within Employment Areas.
Analysis
The proposed development is considered to comply with Policy E1. The proposed development is considered to be suitable in the context of the application property’s location within the employment area of Thames Road and the location of the proposed development within the context of the existing buildings. Car parking for the new unit has already provided as this building replaces two smaller units.
Page 77
Condition number 9 on TP/00241/92/2 states that there should be no new window or door openings in the northern elevation to minimise the transmission of noise and therefore safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring school and residential premises. However even though the northern elevation does contain 4 exit points, as the use of this new building is B1 it is felt that this would not cause a disturbance to the neighbouring properties.
In conclusion it is considered that this proposed development would not be detrimental to the surrounding area, as it has been designed to match the existing units. This development is maximising the employment potential on this site, by replacing two smaller units with a larger unit and filling an unused gap between two existing units.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1) The car parking areas indicated on drawing No.11628/2A shall be constructed and marked out prior to the occupation of the development, and thereafter retained permanently for the accommodation of vehicles of occupiers and visitors to the premises and not used for any other purpose.
2) The development shall not be occupied until details of disabled parking spaces have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved spaces have been implemented. The spaces shall thereafter be permanently retained.
No open storage shall take place on the site other than within an area screened from view and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Page 78 Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 80 AGENDA ITEM 16
Plan: N DC/01/00331/FUL Thames Ward (A)
Address: Former Chelsea Metals (London) Ltd, Renwick Road, Barking
Development: Use of site for waste transfer purposes including erection of 3500m2 handling building, two storey office accommodation, installation of 2 weighbridges/wheel wash and admin block and alteration to site access.
Applicant: Road 2 Rail Ltd, Railtrack Plc
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is approximately 1.4ha in size and comprises an open semi-derelict piece of land, located between the Rippleside Commercial Estate to the north and the railway sidings and Box Lane to the south. Access to the site is via Renwick Road past three commercial units to a set of double gates. The site is set substantially lower than the level of the surrounding road and is not easily visible to passers by. To the west is the railway bridge embankment to Renwick Road and to the south the railway sidings and the raised solid bridge to Box Lane and Containerbase. The nearest properties in Barking Reach are located approximately 120m from the application site.
This proposal seeks planning permission for the use of the site as a waste transfer station. The materials to be handled at the site would be exclusively builders/demolition waste principally consisting of broken concrete, brick, timber, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, asphalted road waste material waste and excavation arisings. Domestic waste would not be brought to the site.
All waste would be handled, sorted and placed into storage containers inside a purpose built handling building prior to removal from the site. This building would be roughly rectangular in shape and measure approximately 75m long by 40m wide with a maximum height of 13.6m. The building would have a brick base to a height of 2.8m with the remainder of the building clad in Gooswing Grey with a feature band of colour set approximately 8m from ground level running around the whole building. The building would have a pitched roof and be accessed from the east and west through roller shutter doors. The handling building would have its own dust suppression system as an integral part of construction whilst all material brought to and from the site would be in closed vehicles.
Directly in front of the handling building would be a traditional looking two storey brick built building with a pitched roof, which would provide office and administration accommodation for the operations.
Whilst all materials would be sorted within the handling building, once this has been completed and the materials placed in secured storage containers the containers would be relocated outside the hall to the rear of the site prior to being transported off the site.
The applicant has confirmed that at capacity a maximum of 250,000 tonnes of materials would be processed by the site each year. This would result in approximately fifty 1/ vehicles visiting the site per day on a 5 2 day week basis over a fifty week year. In addition as part of the proposal a designated railway line would enter the site and specifically the handling building so that material can be removed from the site. It is
Page 81 envisaged that when the site is at full capacity between 60,000 to 100,000 tonnes per annum would be removed from the site by rail. However, this higher figure would not be achieved immediately, but is likely to only occur over the first eighteen months of operation, depending on commercial conditions.
The applicants have confirmed that the proposed hours of use for the site would be 8.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1.30pm on Saturdays with no operations on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays.
To the front of the site is a grassed bank and as part of the proposal this would be landscaped so as to further screen the site from the highway.
Background
Although vacant since the 1980’s, the authorised use for the site is as a scrap metal yard. Planning permission was sought in 1996 for the site to be used a recycling centre. Although planning permission was recommended for a temporary period of 5 years consent was refused for the following reason:
“The proposed development is contrary to policies E.1 and BR.7 of the Unitary Development Plan in that the site is within an Employment Area and a gateway site for Barking Reach in which a high quality development is expected and the proposed use is specifically excluded.”
Supporting Statement
Statements have been submitted by Railtrack and by Sustainable Property Consultants in support of the proposal and form an appendix to this report.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 9 adjoining commercial units were notified and as a result 1 letter was received on behalf of the owner of Units 25-27 Rippleside Commercial Estate. This letter objected to the proposal on the grounds that the development would lead to an unacceptable increase in vehicular movements, noise and dust levels and that the proposal would have an overall detrimental impact on the area, which would affect property values.
Although residents of Barking Reach were not notified as the application site is 120m away from the nearest dwellings, objections were received from 13 residential properties and from Barton Willmore Planning Consultants, on behalf of Bellways as a result of an anonymous flyer being sent to various residents. Again the objections raised centred around the issue of increased vehicular movements in the area, noise and dust levels, potential health hazards including an increase in vermin in the area, the impact the proposal would have on property values and that planning permission has already been refused for a similar scheme in 1996. Barton Willmore on behalf of Bellways also questioned whether the proposal was in conformity with UDP policy, that no traffic impact assessment has been submitted as part of the proposal and that the site is within 800m of a possible location of a station at Thamesview/Ripple Lane.
Page 82 b) London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority – Water
No additional fire hydrants are needed in the above mentioned area. The vehicle requirement for emergency fire appliances is to be provided in full accordance with the requirements of Building Regulations. c) Director of Social Services – Access Officer
Comments raised in respect of the accessibility of the site. d) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection Team
The main issues relating to noise, dust, grit and odours should be addressed within the framework of the Waste Management Licence that will be required for the site. If planning permission is granted any consent issued should incorporate standard condition U1 (Land Contamination). e) Environment Agency
The Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the proposed development provided that conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted in respect of surface water drainage, the construction of the site drainage system and a land contamination survey. f) Building Control
Confirmed that the proposed amendments to the access road comply with the requirements for vehicular access as laid out in B5 of the Building Regulations. g) Union Railways
No objection to the proposal. h) Chief Executive – Strategic Regeneration
No comments to make. i) London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority – Safety
The brigade is satisfied with the proposal in respect of the access arrangements. j) Thames Water
No objection k) Essex and Suffolk Water
No comments to make. l) Greater London Authority
Page 83 Generally supports the application as it is an example of the waste, demolition and aggregates industry responding positively to the policy of encouraging the use of recycled materials. The Council though should give consideration to the environmental and transport impact of the development if the proposed rail connection cannot handle upwards of 100,000 tonnes of the sorted waste. To safeguard against this the application should be required to enter into a suitable Section 106 Legal Agreement and relevant conditions attached to any consent granted. m) Traffic and Road Safety Group
No comments made.
UDP Policy
BR.7 Barking Reach Gateway Sites G.29 Waste
No policy issue.
Analysis
When planning permission was refused in 1997 for the use of the site as a recycling centre, all operations were to take place in the open with little or no screening provided. In addition the waste material was to be recycled on site to produce aggregates for use in road construction and building work projects. As a consequence the reason for refusal made it clear that any proposal for the site, which would result in the majority of works taking place in the open would be unacceptable and that in addition any future proposal must be of a high quality in respect of landscape works and the scale, massing and siting of the development is appropriate to the location and surrounding developments.
In light of this it is considered that there are clear material difference between the previous proposal and the planning application currently under consideration. Firstly none of the material brought to the site would actually be recycled. Instead the material would be merely sorted into different categories and then removed from the site where it would be processed so that it could be reused again. Secondly all operations would take place within a purpose built building so as to reduce any noise and disturbance caused by the proposed use. Thirdly the proposed building is of a high quality of design and would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area. Indeed due to the application site being subordinate to the surrounding area and the large grass bank to the front of the site, which is to be landscaped it is unlikely that the proposed buildings would be particularly visible.
As to whether the proposed use itself is acceptable it is important to consider this in light of the activities which could take place on the site at present and the impact that other developments in the immediate area may have on the wider environment. Whilst the site has not been in use since the 1980’s the lawful use of the site is as a scrap metal yard. When consent was granted under decision notice TP/105/60 all operations were carried out in the open with no control over the hours of use.
Page 84 With regard to the surrounding uses Members are aware of the problems of illegal car breakers situated along the whole length of Box Lane, which is closer to residential properties than the application site and the Enforcement Action being taken by the Council. This action came about due to complaints received from the residents of Scratton Farm and Containerbase. No complaints were received by the planning authority from either the residents of Thames View Estate or Barking Reach in respect of noise and disturbance caused by these illegal operators. In respect of Containerbase this is a major transport generating use where HGV movements to and from the site on a daily basis are higher than those proposed on the application site.
Consideration should also be given as to what impact the site would have if it was redeveloped for more traditional B2 and B8 uses and what impact they would have on the surrounding area. It is unlikely that vehicle movements to and from the site on a daily basis, especially at peak times would be any less than that generated by the proposed use. Indeed it is probable in view of the parking facilities provided at recent redevelopment schemes at Dagenham Dock and along the A13 that vehicle movements from B2 and B8 uses would exceed those of the proposed use.
To further compensate against any potential impact that the development may have on the surrounding area the applicants have agreed via the signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to contribute £40,000 toward improvements in the immediate area. In addition the Section 106 Legal Agreement would include the requirement for a green travel plan to be produced for the site.
With regard to the objections raised as a result of the consultation process the following comments are made:
1. The letter received on behalf of the management company for units 25-27 estimates that the proposed development would lead to 500 vehicle movements although no clarification is given as to whether they feel that this is the vehicle movement for the site on a daily, monthly or yearly basis. If it was an estimate for a daily figure this is considered an over exaggeration especially when the applicants have confirmed that the vehicle movement for the site would be around 50. In addition it is worthwhile noting that the objector confirms that the vehicle movement for their three units on a daily basis is approximately 150. Therefore on a unit by unit basis it would appear that the proposed use is not likely to have a greater vehicle movement ratio. It is also worthwhile considering again the level of vehicle movements if the site was to be redeveloped for a similar purpose as units 25-27 and whether any objections would be raised in this respect.
As to road improvements to accommodate additional vehicle movements the applicants have confirmed that the entrance point to the access road leading to the site would be improved. Furthermore Building Control have confirmed that the vehicle access meets the standards laid out in B5 of the Building Regulations and as such would meet the requirements of the Fire Brigade. This has been confirmed by the Fire Brigade who have raised no objection. In respect of proposed improvements works at the Renwick Road junction with the A13 this will be discussed later on within the report.
As to concerns raised about the possible environmental impact of the proposed use on the surrounding area and whether the site is suitable for the proposed use
Page 85 this issue has already been mentioned in the report. However, it is worth reiterating that all operations would take place within a purpose built building, that the materials to be handled at the site are to be demolition/building waste rather than domestic rubbish so there should be no opportunity for smells and odours. Furthermore it is noted that no objections have been received from either the Council’s Environmental Protection team or the Environment Agency over the proposed location of the site and its impact on the surrounding area.
It is not considered that the possible impact that the development may have on property values is a material consideration which can be taken into consideration.
2. In respect of the objections raised by some of the residents in Barking Reach it is again reiterated that the application site is set approximately 120m to the north of the nearest residential property and is physically separated from them by Containerbase and operational railway lines. It is also worth considering that the residential properties are located on the edge of an existing industrial area and residents must be well aware of the mixed-use nature of the area. As a result of this and the fact that all operations would take place inside a purpose built building it is considered unlikely that the development would result in any undue increase in the level of disturbance already caused by noise and dust and therefore have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.
As to potential health hazards and increase in vermin the material to be handled would be demolition/building waste and is therefore unlikely to contain any contaminated materials. Where material is found to be contaminated, this should be removed immediately to a suitably licensed landfill facility. As to resulting in an increase in vermin due to the nature of the material to be brought to the site this is considered unlikely to occur.
As to planning permission being refused for a similar scheme in 1996 it is considered that there are significant differences between the two proposals as explained above and that this alone is not grounds for refusal in this instance.
3. With regard to the comments made by Barton Willmore on behalf of Bellway, although a Traffic Impact Assessment has not been requested it was not considered necessary due to the size and proposed use of the site. This view is supported by the fact that neither the Greater London Authority in association with Transport for London or the Council’s own Traffic and Road Safety group requested an assessment to be submitted. The applicant has confirmed though that a significant portion of the material brought to the site would be removed by rail, with the development having its own designated line within the development and this has been confirmed by Railtrack.
As to the developments impact on the Renwick Road junction with the A13 Members are aware that improvement works are currently under consideration so as to compensate for additional vehicle movements created as a result of Barking Reach. However, it has been confirmed by Transport for London that a final decision has yet to be made on what the proposed works would involve due to the fact that the proposed number of units to be constructed on Barking Reach is still under consideration.
Page 86 It is therefore considered to be unreasonable to request a traffic impact assessment. Any findings would be unreliable in respect of the true long term impact that the development would have as it would not be able to take into account the impact the proposed improvement works would have and the impact that commuter traffic would have. To potentially judge the suitability of the development in respect of its traffic implications in this way and in light of the uncertainty surrounding the junction improvements is considered unjustifiable.
In respect of how vehicles would reach the site it is considered likely that the majority would utilise the A13 although it is claimed that vehicles may use Choats Road and Thames Road as an alternative route. Whilst this may be the case it would be very difficult to attach an enforceable condition on any consent granted limiting the routes that driver took to the site.
Both of these roads are currently used by lorries to gain access to existing industrial areas and of the two it is considered most likely that Thames Road would be used as the alternative route due to the location of the site. However, the majority of Thames Road is used for industrial purposes with only a small section of Barking Reach physically facing onto Thames Road. In addition access into this section of Barking Reach is controlled via traffic light junction. Consequently the dominant use in the area is industrial and in view of the existing traffic flows on this road it is considered that the potential of a few additional vehicles using the road would not adversely prejudice this part of Barking Reach.
There is concern that the proposed site is in close proximity to a possible location for a station to serve Barking Reach and Thames View. However, this location has not been decided and it is unclear as to whether a station for C2C trains will be required. Consequently it is considered unjustifiable to prejudice the potential re-development of a site on the basis of a future development where there is no guarantee that it would be built or required.
As to the level of waste to be handled the applicants have stated what the maximum throughput per annum would be. In addition as part of the waste management licence the Environment Agency would condition the level of waste permitted per year and oversee its compliance as well as require details on how the operator proposed to control dust, grit and odours on the site.
With regard to the remaining comments received as a result of the consultation process these are noted and suitably worded conditions will be attached where appropriate if Members are mindful to grant planning permission.
Overall it is considered that the proposed development is materially different from the previous proposal which was refused consent. As such the reason given for refusing consent is not relevant in this instance. As to the acceptability of the site to the surrounding area and the proposal meeting the requirements of UDP policy it is considered that with all operations located within a high quality purpose built building and the site set well away from the nearest properties on Barking Reach that the development would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. Whilst the development would generate vehicle movements these are likely to be no greater than if the site was redeveloped for a more traditional B2 or B8 use. As such and taking into consideration the existing operations in the immediate and surrounding area it is
Page 87 considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the aims of Unitary Development Plan policy BR7 and G29 and for the reason outlined above the objections raised cannot be supported and do not provide sufficient reasons in this instance to refuse consent.
Recommendation
That subject to the successful signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of a contribution of £40,000 towards environmental improvements in the immediate area and the formation of a Green Travel Plan that 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
4. F.8 Landscape Maintenance
5. I.4 Vehicle Access
6. I.6 Completion of Parking Areas.
7. I.7 Use of Parking Areas
8. I.11 Cycle Parking
9. M.3 Hours of Use (8.00am to 5.30pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am-1.30pm Sat)
10. M.4 Hours of Construction
11. N.1 Details of Sound Insulation
12. O.3 Details of Commercial Refuse Containers
13. P.1 Details of Boundary Treatment
14. Q.1 Details/Samples of Facing Materials
15. R.1 Ramped Access
16. Before development is commenced the location of 1 disabled driver and passenger parking bay shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter be clearly marked with a British Standard disabled symbol and permanently retained.
17. Surface water drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences
Page 88 18. The construction of the site drainage system shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences.
19. Before the development is commenced a detailed site investigation shall be carried 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 works. Details of the appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provision for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved.
20. Details of the sprinkler system to be installed inside the waste management building shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before the development commence and then installed before the site becomes operational. The approved sprinkler system shall thereafter be permanently retained in good working order.
21. The waste management building shall not be used for the storage or processing of waste until such time as all sides are enclosed as shown on the approved drawings.
22. No open storage shall take place on the site other than within an area previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
23. The waste management building shall not be used for the storage or processing of waste until the designated railway line has been installed and in working order.
Details of the passing/parking bay in the access road shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and shall be constructed prior to the occupation of the site.
Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 90 Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 92 AGENDA ITEM 17
Plan: O DC/02/00595/FUL Thames Ward (A)
Address: Gascoigne Wharf, Alfreds Way, Barking
Development: Amended Application: Erection of wholesale warehouse (5536m2) together with associated car parking and servicing areas
Applicant: Bestway Cash & Carry Limited
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is approximately 1.63 ha in size and located on the south side of Alfred's Way, a dual carriageway section of the A13 directly opposite the Gascoigne Road junction and the Icon Warne site. To the east is No. 3-8 Riverside Cottages, which are separated from the application site by the existing access road from Alfred's Way, which also leads to the Thames Water pumping station situated to the south east of the site. To the south west of the site is the River Roding, which runs along the whole of the site boundary with the Showcase Cinema situated behind this along with other associated leisure facilities including ten-pin bowling and various eating establishments.
The site is currently vacant and this proposal seeks consent for the erection of a wholesale warehouse (5536m2) together with a service yard and a 94 space car park of which, 82 spaces would be for customers, including 7 disabled spaces and 12 designated spaces for staff. This would result in the demolition of the existing two storey flat roofed building and a variety of single storey hipped roof brick built buildings, which are in a poor condition and their replacement with a purpose built structure. The proposed building would abut the boundary with the A13 from a west to east direction for approximately 84m and then at an angle of 30o kink into the site for a further 48m. Externally the building would have a brick base of up to 4 metres, followed by 6 metres of composite cladding in the company corporate colours to eaves level and then finished with 1m high dual pitched roof.
Internally, whilst the building at ground floor level would be open plan and similar to that of a domestic supermarket, there would be distinct differences. The goods available would be primarily foodstuffs and sold in bulk, whilst the stacking of goods would be to ceiling height. This would result in forklift type vehicles to be required inside the building and therefore the distance between aisles to be much greater. As the store would be for the trade only every customer would be required to apply and be granted a membership card. For this they would be required to provide proof of ownership of a relevant business, a VAT registration certificate/code and their bank details. In addition when members visited the site they would be required to show their membership card before they were allowed to enter the premises.
At ground floor level office accommodation would be provided, whilst at first floor level ancillary staff facilities would be provided along with a 2 bedroom flat, which is a standard feature in their premises and used for various reasons. Primarily it is used for security purposes, although Bestway’s management staff use the residential flat when transferred from another warehouse on a temporary basis, plus when meetings take place in the evenings or weekends.
Page 93 Due to the location of the building the customer and staff car park would be located to the south of the building. Whilst this would result in the majority of the parking spaces being screened from the highway it also means that the main entrance point to the building for customers would be from the south as well. To the west of the building would be the service yards for delivery vehicles. This in itself would be screened from the highway due to the lie of the land and a continuous landscaped strip running along the northern boundary of the site, which would increase to a substantial buffer zone in the front north east corner of the site.
Background
Planning permission was granted on 10 April 2002 for the erection of a 6054m2 Bestway Cash and Carry Warehouse on the site under decision notice DC/01/00720/FUL and a copy of the officers report forms an appendix to this report. At the time of determining this proposal Thames Water raised no objection. However, as a result of initial survey work on the site it was discovered that the original location of the building would impact on the rising mains running across the site. Consequently the current proposal was submitted so as to resolve this matter. This would result in the overall floor space provided marginally reduced by 500m2 and due to the redesign part of the building being set further back from the road frontage than initially proposed.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 11 adjoining properties and the landlord of No.3 Riverside Cottages were consulted, but no response was received. b) London Borough of Newham
No observations to make on the proposal.
UDP Policy
E.1 Employment Development Within Employment Areas E.4/5 Access for People With Disabilities BR.9 A13 and River Road – Landscape Improvements H.13-16 New Residential Development Interim Car Parking Standards
Policy Issue – Over provision of off-street car parking and level of residential amenity space.
Analysis
The same policy issues were raised when the initial application was presented to Members for consideration on 9 April 2002, although they were not deemed sufficient to warrant the refusal of planning permission. In respect of the level of off street car parking for the site a traffic impact assessment was undertaken, which looked at the projected parking needs for the site in light of the parking flows experienced at their existing stores throughout the country. Whilst it was accepted that the demand for parking spaces would fluctuate throughout the year and that not all the spaces would be
Page 94 required all of the time, additional provision was required to taken into account seasonal factors such as Christmas and Easter when demand was greater than normal. In addition as customers to the site bought goods in bulk the use of public transport was impractical. Since then little has changed in relation to the appearance of the site or in terms of planning policy and as such it remains the view that these matters still do not by themselves provide sufficient reason to warrant the refusal of planning permission.
Indeed it is considered that the change in the design and appearance of the building due to the location of the rising mains would provide additional character to the proposed development and move the appearance of the building further away from a traditional warehouse structure. In addition due to the inclusion of the kink in the building line this would increase the provision of on site landscaping in the north east corner of the site thereby providing a further focal point for the site and development.
Recommendation
That 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
4. I.4 Vehicular Access (Commercial)
5. I.6 Completion of Parking Areas
6. I.7 Use of Parking Areas
7. I.9 Vehicular Loading and Unloading
8. The building shall only be used between the hours of 8.00am to 8.00pm Monday to Saturdays and 9.00am to 4.00pm on Sundays and on public and bank holidays.
9. M.4 Hours of Construction Work
10. O.1 Details of Dustbin Enclosures
11. P.1 Details of Boundary Treatment
12. R.1 Ramped Access
13. R.2 Disabled Driver and Passenger Bays
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 Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater
Page 95 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. All doors must contain a single leaf, which provides a minimum clear unobstructed opening of not less than 800mm and thereafter permanently maintained as such.
16. A continuous flood defence to a level of 5.5m above ODN shall be provided.
17. An acceptably accessed, profiled and constructed flood defence zone shall be provided adjacent to the river in accordance with details that shall be submitted to and approved the Local Planning Authority prior to the implementation of the approved development.
18. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a detailed scheme for landscaping, including treatment of the riverside buffer zone, siting and detailing of river edge fencing, has been approved and implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
19. No soakways shall be constructed in contaminated ground.
20. The construction of the surface and foul drainage system shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences.
Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 104 AGENDA ITEM 18
Plan: P DC/02/00788/OUT Parsloes Ward (A)
Address: Ravensfield Close, Dagenham
Development: Outline application: Erection of part two, part three storey building to provide hostel for homeless people comprising 11 one bedroom, 11 two bedroom flats and 2 three bedroom flats
Applicant: Look Ahead Housing and Care Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprises a piece of land off Ravensfield Close, off the southern side of Wood Lane. The land was previously part of the adjacent Baptist Church and is bordered to the west by residential dwellings. The existing site consists of a former sheltered two storey housing scheme of 16 bedsit flats on two storeys, built in the 1960s, with garages at the rear of the site. The property was de-designated as sheltered housing by reason of lack of demand and a poor standard of accommodation, including a lack of warden support and without a lift to the upper floor units.
The outline application proposes the erection of 24 units of supported temporary accommodation in self-contained flatlets, along with staff accommodation and communal facilities including a children’s' playroom and a laundry. Twenty four hour staff cover will be provided. The mix of accommodation will range from family to single person units. The garages on site would be retained.
The applicants have reserved all matters except for siting and means of access. Access to the site will be secured via the existing close, along the eastern boundary of the site. The building will extend to three storeys along the Wood Lane frontage with the rest of the development formed of a central spine along the middle of the site, predominantly at three storey level save for a two storey element towards the garages at the rear.
Where the Council accepts that it has a legal duty to provide accommodation, it is expected that alternative provision will be arranged elsewhere in the Borough within 4 - 8 weeks. Where the Council does not accept such a duty, the resident will be required to leave the accommodation, either to make their own arrangements or to move to the area of another local authority that has accepted that it has a statutory duty to assist.
Background
Planning permission was granted in 1961 for the erection of the home for elderly people and garages (DC/60/00236/DAG).
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
A total of 12 letters of objection were received in response to the public consultation exercise. The central concern raised in objection was that locating a hostel in the area would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring quality of life, expressing fears that crime and unsociable behaviour may rise affecting the current quiet setting, particularly given the number of flats proposed and the
Page 105 associated numbers and type of new residents who would unlikely have any feel for the area. Residents expressed that they were already suffering from poor behaviour, notably in relation to those leaving the nearby Cherry Tree Pub. Additionally, the site was formerly for the benefit of elderly people within the Borough and they appear to have been moved out with little regard for the previous occupiers and the surrounding residents. Another major concern was that the development would give rise to additional traffic congestion and parking problems in the vicinity. Objection was raised that the scale of the development would lead to a loss of privacy and would be an unduly prominent feature in the streetscene. Some residents stated that the development would lead to the devaluation of local property, one suggesting the site be used for key workers and one was concerned regarding the lack of consultation exercise associated with the proposal. b) Traffic and Road Safety Section
No response. c) London Fire Safety
Satisfied with the proposals. d) Thames Water
No response. e) Environment Agency
No objection. f) Metropolitan Police
No response. g) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Health
No response.
UDP Policy
H7 Special Needs Housing H13 New Residential Development C2 Premises for Facilities for the Community
Potential policy issue in respect of impact of development on neighbouring occupiers.
Analysis
The new temporary accommodation is required by the Council as part of a strategy to end the use of costly and poor quality bed and breakfast accommodation for families, as
Page 106 required by Central Government by April 2004, in response to a recent steep increase in the number of homeless applicants. At present, the Council is making full use of the 34 rooms provided at a hostel in Boundary Road, Barking and currently places 70 individuals/families in Bed and Breakfast accommodation. The proposed development would afford the Council the opportunity to locate temporary homeless people in secure and quality accommodation. Hence, it is considered that an identified need within the Borough is being met.
The central concern raised in objection was the displacement of the previous, elderly residents and an influx of a large number homeless people. The neighbouring objectors felt that the homeless would have an adverse effect on the surrounding area and its residents, citing a potential rise in crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour alongside other aspects of noise and disturbance, notably when considered against existing unwelcome behaviour. The presumption that the occupiers would necessarily cause more disturbance to existing occupiers than any other type of neighbour is not supported by any evidence. The occupiers of the premises would not necessarily be criminals but are just unfortunate enough to be homeless. The residents cite some existing problems within the neighbourhood, notably in relation to a local public house, and whilst this is obviously unfortunate it is a social problem which no doubt includes homeowners. It needs to be noted that the hostel will be under 24-hour supervision and accordingly there will be a greater degree of control over the occupants of the site than there would be elsewhere, this should hopefully nullify perceived and real concerns.
In respect of the other issues raised in objection, it is not felt that this proposal would have any significant detrimental impact upon the level of traffic in the vicinity and would not add to parking pressures. The plans show 7 parking spaces which should be more than adequate for the site given the client base, who are most unlikely to car owners.
As regards building design, the proposal is predominantly three storey in height. The hostel will be located along the central spine of the site and accordingly set some distance away (around 25 metres) from neighbouring residential property. This should alleviate any concerns regarding a loss of privacy and overlooking. Moreover, the Baptist Church, immediately to the east of the proposal is approximately three storeys as well and therefore, the hostel will sit alongside a building of a similar scale.
On the other matters of objection, there is no scope within Planning to assess the impact of the proposal on local housing valuation and the Planning Division does not control the type of planning application presented before it, whether that be in terms of pre-consultation exercises or the aims of the proposal.
In conclusion, this development will provide new and quality accommodation for those most in need of housing in Barking and Dagenham and it should make a positive contribution towards well being of the Borough generally.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. C1 Reserved Matters
2. C2 Submission of Details
Page 107
3. C3 Commencement
4. G1 Tree Survey
5. I8 Vehicle Parking (Outline)
6. Cycle stands shall be installed at the premises in a position and of a type to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
7. M4 Hours of Construction Work
8. O1 Details of Dustbin Enclosures
9. P1 Details of Boundary Treatment
10. R1 Ramped Access
Page 108 Page 109 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 110 AGENDA ITEM 19
Plan: Q DC/02/00564/FUL Heath Ward (A)
Address: Frizlands Depot, Frizlands Lane, Dagenham
Development: Reorganisation and redevelopment of existing civic amenity site to provide improved facilities
Applicant: ELWA Limited
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is the existing civic amenity facility, which is approximately 0.2ha in size and forms part of the larger Council run depot at Frizlands Lane. To the south of the depot is Bull Lane, with Frizlands Lane to the west both of which are dominated by residential accommodation, whilst running along the north eastern boundary is Rainham Road North from where the site is accessed.
Members are aware that the applicant is a joint statutory Waste Disposal Authority responsible for the disposal of waste generated by the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge and Newham. As part of ELWA’s plans for the disposal of waste generated by the four Boroughs, Shanks has been selected to manage and dispose of all delivered domestic waste and some trade waste across the ELWA area for the next 25 years.
As part of this agreement ELWA Limited, a specifically created company, proposes to redevelop the 4 existing civic amenity sites located at Gerpins Lane (Upminster), Jenkins Lane (Beckton), Chigwell Road (Woodford) and Frizlands Lane in Dagenham. Each site would be re-branded as Refuse and Recycling Centres with new facilities, which would result in:
1. Improved waste handling and operational safety; 2. An increase in the level of waste recycled; 3. Better traffic flows within the sites thereby reducing queuing on the public highway; 4. Minimise environmental impact; and 5. Improve visual amenity.
In addition to this and as part of the overall programme of works for the 4 Boroughs it is proposed to construct at both Frog Island and Jenkins Lane a new Biological Materials Recycling and Recovery facility as well as a Refuse and Recycling Centre where waste material would be processed for recycling. Through this co-ordinated strategy it is hoped that the level of waste recycled by the 4 Boroughs will be significantly increased so as to meet the requirements as outlined in the Government’s Waste Strategy 20002 document and of the Mayor in his Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy.
To assist in this the current application seeks planning permission for the redevelopment and reorganisation of the existing facilities at Frizlands Lane. At present the site consists of two open air tipping halls located approximately 65m from the nearest residential property in Bull Lane with limited facilities available for the recycling of materials. Access through the facility for all vehicles is via a one way system, which forms a ring road around the site.
Page 111 The proposed redevelopment would result in a purpose built tipping hall measuring 15.5m wide by 79.5m long with a maximum height of 10m and a minimum height of 9m. The tipping hall would be constructed out of precast concrete up to a height of 5m with galvanised steel columns and the remainder finished in plastic coated profiled metal sheet cladding coloured green, with the same material utilised for the roof.
Access to the tipping hall would be segregated so that the south side would be for waste brought in by local residents only, whilst the north would be utilised by refuse and commercial vehicles, who would have access to a service yard 79.5m long by approximately 16.4m wide. Vehicles utilising the north side would discharge their loads through two permanently open entrance points measuring 10m and 12m wide respectfully. For non commercial waste 24 parking spaces would be provided running in parallel with the building, with waste material being deposited through 10 open portals measuring either 7.6m or 6.2m wide. The building would be set back a minimum of 21m from the boundary of the site, so that the overall distance from the residential properties located in Bull Lane would be 34m. This would result in two existing buildings on the site being demolished. Running along the southern boundary of the site would be a 6m landscaped strip, which would further screen the development from the nearby residential properties.
Running along the northern boundary of the service yard colour coded containers would be located so as to provide the opportunity for a wider range of materials to be segregated. This would include traditional materials like glass, paper, plastic, cans and cardboard, but also white goods like fridges, textiles and timber. Eighteen car parking spaces would be provided adjacent to these containers in addition to two disabled parking spaces, with specially designed bins for disabled users.
Clear road markings would be provided to direct vehicles to the right location with a head height barrier provided to limit those vehicles utilising the non commercial area, whilst a rising arm vehicle barrier would restrict access to the service yard area. At present the site has a capacity of 50,000 tonnes per year and it is not expected that this figure would be increased as a result of this proposal. The proposed hours of operation would be 7.30am to 4.30pm Monday to Friday, 7.30am to 4pm on Saturday, 8am to 4pm on Sunday and 8am to 4pm on Bank Holidays except on Christmas and Boxing Day.
On site security would be provided through the existing weighbridge/guardhouse at the entrance to Frizlands Depot. The guardhouse is manned 24 hours a day and houses the site wide CCTV system enabling the depot and the Refuse and Recycling Centre. The proposed reorganisation would be carried out in phases so that the site would remain open and be able to provide a service to the Borough.
Background
This part of the site has historically been used as a civic amenity site although no formal consent was granted when the use initially started. However, the use was regularised on 29 April 2002 when the site and the operations carried out were granted a Certificate of Lawfulness under decision notices DC/02/00199/CLU_P and DC/02/00200/CLU_P.
Page 112
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 98 adjoining residential, community and commercial uses were consulted and as a result no letters were received objecting to the proposed development. One letter was received from the Headteacher of William Bellamy Junior School enquiring whether any additional boundary treatment could be provided along Frizlands Lane. b) London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority - Safety
Proposal satisfactory provided there is the adequate provision of water supplies for fire fighting vehicles and that access is suitable. c) London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority - Water
No addition fire hydrants are needed in the above mentioned area. d) Access Officer
The site appears well laid out to meet the needs of disabled persons. e) Traffic and Road Safety Manager
Various comments made requesting additional information/amendments to site layout. f) English Heritage – Archaeology
There is no need for archaeology to be considered as a consequence of this application. g) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection Team
No comment to make. h) Greater London Authority
The proposed development accords with the National Waste Strategy and planning policy guidance for waste management. However, the facilities provided at the site do not maximise all opportunities for reuse, which could result in higher rates of combined recycling and reuse. The proposal should provide opportunities to handle household goods, wood, a wider range of surplus building materials than just rubble (i.e. bricks, doors and building boards) and furniture. i) Environment Agency
No objection in principle to the proposed development. Request condition to be attached to any consent granted in respect of site drainage.
Page 113
UDP Policy
G.29 Waste G.31 Waste Re-Use and Recycling
No policy issue.
Analysis
Policy G.31states that:
“The Council will encourage the re-use of materials and the recovery of resources from wastes and will: i) Encourage the provision of installations for the deposition of materials for recycling in locations where they are convenient and accessible both to members of the public and the operator. ii) Encourage the re-use and recycling of building materials and the renovation of adaption of existing buildings. iii) Look favourably upon recycling activities at appropriate locations in the Borough subject to policy G.29 and other policies in this plan. The Council will also develop its Frizlands Civic Amenity Site as a recycling centre.”
Policy G.29 primarily relates to proposals for new facilities. However, whilst there is an existing civic amenity facility at Frizlands Depot it is still considered that the guidance provided in policy G.29 in respect of the impact of the development on residential properties is a material consideration. In this respect although the main tipping hall would be closer to the residential properties in Bull Lane all operations would be located inside a purpose built building, with an environmental control system installed inside. In addition to this it is expected that all material brought to the building would be removed from the site on a daily basis. In light of this and with the addition of a 6m wide landscaped buffer zone it is not considered that the proposed redevelopment would have any serious impact on the amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties. This view is supported by the fact that the Council’s Environmental Protection Team was satisfied with the proposal and no letters objection were received from the occupiers of adjoining properties.
The main thrust of policy G.31 is to encourage recycling within the Borough and to provide the facilities required to achieve this with the Civic Amenity site at Frizlands Lane identified as an existing site, which would be suitable for redevelopment. Consequently the proposed redevelopment complies with the aims of policy G.31 and will assist in the Council achieving the goals set by Central Government and the Greater London Authority in increasing the amount of waste, which is recycled and reused.
With regard to the comments received as a result of the consultation process the following comments are made:
1. Whilst the western boundary of Frizlands Depot is rather unattractive the civic amenity facility is set approximately 60m from the boundary wall and does not
Page 114 form part of the application site. It is therefore unreasonable to consider that this is the applicant’s responsibility and that they should be required to improve its appearance.
2. Suitably amended plans have been submitted and the applicant is willing to having suitably worded conditions attached to any consent granted in respect of the comments raised by the Council’s Traffic and Road Safety Group.
3. As a result of the formal comments made by the Greater London Authority the applicant and representatives from the GLA met and amended plans have now been received to accommodate the points raised.
Overall the proposed development would result in the site being suitably redeveloped so as to provide the services and facilities required by a modern and up to date civic amenity site in the 21st Century, whilst at the same time having no detrimental impact on the surrounding area.
Recommendation
That subject to stage 2 notification from the Greater London Authority, is agreed, planning permission be approved 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. I.4 Vehicle Access (Commercial)
5. I.6 Completion of Parking Areas
6. I.7 Use of Parking Areas
7. M.4 Hours of Construction
8. P01 Details of Boundary Treatment
9. R02 Disabled Passenger and Driver Bay
10. U.1 Land Contamination
11. The site shall only be used between the hours of 07.30am – 4.30pm Monday to Friday, 07.30am – 4.00pm on Saturdays, 08.00am – 4.00pm on Sundays and 08.00am – 4.00pm on Public and Bank Holidays (except on Christmas Day and Boxing Day).
12. Details of the environmental control system to be installed inside the waste handling building shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before the development commence and then installed before the site becomes operational. The approved sprinkler system shall thereafter be permanently retained in good working order.
Page 115
13. Prior to the installation of the recycling containers details of their appearance and how they shall operate shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter kept in good working order.
14. Details of all road markings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained unless written notification is received otherwise.
Prior to redevelopment of the site details of the proposed on site lighting as indicated on drawing No. FL/MCL/GA Rev. C shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in good working order.
Page 116 Page 117 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 118 AGENDA ITEM 20
Plan: R DC/02/00605/FUL Thames Ward (R)
Address: London & Coastal Oil Wharves, Hindmans Way, Dagenham
Development: Continuance of use of land for processing and storage of aggregate material and retention of temporary office accommodation
Applicant: GRS (Roadstone) Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprise a large area of land approximately 12.2ha in size located on the west side of Hindmans Way in Dagenham Dock. In May 2000 a two year temporary consent was granted for the continued use of the site for the processing and storage of aggregate materials and retention of temporary office accommodation (DC/00/00118/FUL). The current application seek the renewal of this consent for a further two year period.
Background
Temporary planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement was initially granted in 1994 (TP/386/94) and then again in 1997 (TP/386/93/1) for the use of land for mixing material to produce fill material used in the construction industry in connection with the clearance of stock piled rubble. However, due to the Section 106 Agreement never being completed these consents were not implemented.
Consultations a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of 7 adjoining sites were notified, but no response was received.
UDP Policy
E.1 Employment Development within Employment Areas BR.4 Dagenham Dock Employment Area BR.5 Dagenham Dock Riverside Area Dagenham Dock Masterplan Dagenham Dock Vision Implementation Strategy (Council policy) Draft Dagenham Dock Interim Planning Guidance
Policy issue as part of the site is located outside the Dagenham Dock Riverside Area and the proposed use does not conform with the draft Dagenham Dock Interim Planning Guidance.
Analysis
Under the UDP the application site is divided in terms of its land use designation. As a consequence the northern half is located within the Dagenham Dock Employment Area which prohibits open storage/aggregate uses, whilst the southern half forms part of the Dagenham Dock Riverside area where proposals for ready mixed concrete plants and
Page 119 proposals for the manufacture of concrete or building products etc are deemed acceptable. The continued demarcation of the site in this manner is promoted within the Dagenham Dock Vision Implementation Strategy, which will form the basis for the new Interim Planning Policy Guidance for Dagenham Dock. This will shortly go out to public consultation with the guidance seeking to promote Dagenham Dock as a ‘Sustainable Industrial Park’ with a strong emphasis on manufacturing within the environmental sector.
Although the application relates to the whole of the site the applicant only utilises the northern half of the site. Consequently the location of the proposed use within the site is outside the area where UDP policy directs aggregate related uses and subsequently contrary to UDP policy.
Whilst it is accepted that an exception to UDP policy was permitted in 2000 this was because the redevelopment and regeneration of the area was not expected to feasible until the completion of Choats Manor Way, with the earliest date for completion expected to be at the end of 2001. It was therefore considered that the continued use of the site for the proposed use in the short term would not have a negative impact on the redevelopment of Dagenham Dock. However, the applicant was aware of the long term aims of the Council for Dagenham Dock and agreed to the temporary time period granted for the site reduced from three years as approved under application Nos. TP/386/93 and TP/386/93/1 to two years.
Members are aware that Choats Manor Way has now been completed and that the redevelopment of the area is well under way with considerable interest not only being shown by developers, but also at a regional and national level in respect of its importance for the future growth of London.
In light of this and the contradiction with UDP policy it is not considered appropriate to allow a non conforming use to continue on the site when permanent redevelopment proposals are likely to come forward, which are in line with the Council’s vision for the area. Indeed in allowing the temporary use to retain on the site this could hinder other redevelopment proposal in the area and overall regeneration of Dagenham Dock.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The continued use of the site for the storage and processing of aggregates is contrary to policy BR.4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and to the up and coming Draft Dagenham Dock Interim Planning Guidance
Page 120 Page 121 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 122 AGENDA ITEM 21
Plan: S DC/02/00573/REG3 Thames Ward (A)
Address: Thames View Infants School, Bastable Avenue, Barking
Development: Erection of 2 storey nursery together with associated car parking and landscaped areas
Applicant: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham – Education Assets
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site is located on the south side of Bastable Avenue opposite the Farr Avenue retail parade, on the grassed portion of land to the in front of Thames Infants School. To the west of the site is land formerly occupied by a youth club which is currently undergoing construction work to erect a two storey building to provide a Sure Start Centre, youth facility and library.
The application proposes the construction of a 2 storey nursery building to be located to the front of the existing school. The proposed nursery will accommodate 90 children as part of the Sure Start programme in conjunction with a Single Regeneration Bid for this part of the Borough. The building will rise from single storey at the Bastable Avenue frontage to two storeys at the rear. The frontage will present ground floor level windows above which will be a sloping grass seed roof up to two storey height incorporating a small recessed ‘roof garden’ within that roof space. To the rear, the development is formed of a series of blocks which protrude from the rear elevation in a random fashion, and finished in a variety of colours. To the front of the building will be play areas for the children behind landscaping at the road frontage, whilst to the rear the applicants propose the creation of a courtyard. A total of 16 vehicle spaces will be provided on this site in addition to new bicycle racks. Pedestrian access for both the nursery and the existing school will be via the existing point of entry to the site.
The nursery facility will comprise 90 children, approximately 40 of which will be transferred from the existing nursery at the Infants School, the remaining 50 will be attending on a day care basis. The centre will comprise 14 staff, employed predominantly on a part-time shift basis.
The facility will be run for the benefit of the residents of Thames View and no-one else.
Background
There are none relevant on this site although planning permission was granted in May 2002 for the erection of the two storey Sure Start building referred to above (DC/02/00163/REG3).
Consultations a) Adjoining occupiers
No response received. b) Director of Social Services – Children and Families Division
Page 123 Fully support this application. c) Director of Housing and Health – Environmental Protection
No response. d) Access Officer
No comments. e) Metropolitan Police – Crime Prevention Design Adviser
A series of amendments have been made to the initial scheme in response to Metropolitan Police recommendations.
UDP Policy
Strategic Policy T C2 Premises for facilities for the Community
No policy issue.
Analysis
This application follows on from the previous application earlier this year and should be viewed in the community rebuilding process. The site is zoned for Community Purposes within the UDP and as such there is no objection to the principle of development.
The building will be accessed off Bastable Avenue, through controlled gates and will contain 16 formalised parking spaces, two of which will be for disabled drivers, serving both the school and the nursery, replacing the existing informal car parking area. Whilst not an excessive number of spaces for both the school and the nursery, it is considered acceptable for a community based building where the majority of the intended user group will be within walking distance.
The proposed development provides a bold and innovative design which will be a prominent and positive feature of the local community improvement. Moreover, the scheme has been designed to meet the needs of the occupants of the Thames View estate exclusively. In that light, it is not considered that there are any material reasons why planning consent should be granted.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. F1 Landscaping
2. F8 Landscape Maintenance
3. I6 Completion of Parking Areas
4. M4 Construction Work
Page 124
5. P1 Details of Boundary Treatment
6. Q1 Details/Samples of Facing Materials
Page 125 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 126 Page 127 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 128 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
22 OCTOBER 2002 (DELEGATE)
APPL. NO. APPLICANT DEVELOPMENT AND WARD ADDRESS DC/02/00484/FUL Northgate Vehicle Use of land for vehicle hire, Thames Hire Limited servicing and valeting K & B Forest Products Long Reach Road Barking DC/02/00543/FUL General Purposes Erection of 5 pole mounted Chadwell Committee CCTV cameras on Station Heath Road & High Road High Road Chadwell Heath Romford DC/02/00648/LBC Aventis Pharma Application for Listed Building Eastbrook Consent: Internal alterations to canteen including laying of new floor, formation of new floor, formation of new suspended ceiling, enlargement of stage and redecoration of walls Aventis Pharma Rainham Road South Dagenham DC/02/00662/FUL Mr S Aydemir & Mr B Erection of single storey side Becontree Tasci extension to shop and installation of shop front 114 Becontree Avenue Dagenham DC/02/00663/ADV Mr S Aydemir & Mr B Installation of externally Becontree Tasci illuminated fascia sign 114 Becontree Avenue Dagenham DC/02/00670/FUL Mr S Raja Erection of single storey rear Longbridge extension 187 Westrow Drive Barking DC/02/00677/FUL Mr & Mrs Mitchell Erection of single storey side Eastbrook extension incorporating garage 57 Laurel Crescent Rush Green Romford DC/02/00690/FUL Mr D White Erection of two storey side Chadwell extension Heath 27 Stanley Avenue Dagenham DC/02/00694/FUL Mr D J Howard Erection of single storey rear Goresbrook extension 23 Heathway Dagenham
Page 129 DC/02/00703/FUL Mr M Allen Conversion of house into two 2 Abbey bedroom flats 129 Fanshawe Avenue Barking DC/02/00730/FUL Mr M Yearley Erection of single storey rear Eastbrook extension 57 Hardie Road Dagenham DC/02/00735/FUL Mr J S Bhatia Erection of first floor rear Abbey extension to provide enlarged bedroom 3 Thorpe Road Barking
Page 130 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM LEISURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SECTION
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD – DELEGATED APPLICATIONS
5 NOVEMBER 2002 (DELEGATE)
APPL. NO. APPLICANT DEVELOPMENT AND WARD ADDRESS DC/02/00457/FUL D J Higgens & Sons Installation of 8 containers in Parsloes Ltd connection with use of land as temporary builders’ compound Garage Site Land Rear of 330- 346 Rugby Road Dagenham DC/02/00481/FUL Kelsey Housing Erection of single storey Parsloes Association residential care home for people with learning and physical disabilities Mayesbrook Comprehensive School Bromhill Road Dagenham DC/02/00533/FUL Mr L Phillips Erection of two storey side Marks extension to provide additional Gate lounge accommodation at ground floor with 2 bedrooms over Sungate Cottages 3 Collier Row Road Romford RM5 2DB DC/02/00639/FUL Mrs R Inayat Erection of rear conservatory Eastbrook 101 Hardie Road Dagenham DC/02/00654/FUL R Carey Erection of single storey/part Chadwell two storey rear extension to Heath shop and flat over and installation of rear dormer window 91 High Road Chadwell Heath Romford RM6 6PB DC/02/00672/FUL Mr E W Reeve Erection of single storey side Mayesbrook extension 26 Gale Street Dagenham RM9 4NH DC/02/00673/FUL Mr & Mrs L Beestone Erection of part single storey, Village part two storey rear extension 9 Sandown Avenue Dagenham RM10 8XD DC/02/00687/FUL Simon David Karim Continuance of use of Mayesbrook demountable building as mini- cab office Barking Football Club Lodge Avenue Dagenham RM8 2JR
Page 131 DC/02/00689/FUL Mrs S Mallett Erection of two storey side and Goresbrook part single/part two storey rear extension 27 Chaplin Road Dagenham DC/02/00695/FUL Asif Mirza Erection of rear garage/shed Eastbury 12 Blake Avenue Barking IG11 9RT DC/02/00696/ADV JC Decaux Erection of two 48 sheet Abbey internally illuminated advertisement hoards (land adjacent) 14 The Triangle Tanner Street Barking IG11 8QA DC/02/00699/FUL Leon Koortzen Erection of two three storey Chadwell extension to provide car Heath parking on ground floor with offices over (including Unit 4) Unit 3 Dominion Works Freshwater Road Dagenham RM8 1SB DC/02/00700/FUL Sainsburys Installation of ATM Whalebone Supermarkets Ltd J Sainsbury’s 123-127 High Road Chadwell Heath Romford DC/02/00709/FUL Kilby and Gayford Installation of ATM Chadwell Shell Triptons PFS 79 Heath Whalebone Lane South Dagenham RM8 1AJ DC/02/00710/ADV Kilby and Gayford Installation of fascia sign Chadwell Shell Triptons PFS 79 Heath Whalebone Lane South Dagenham RM8 1AJ DC/02/00718/FUL Mrs E Lloyd Erection of single storey rear Becontree extension 23 Amidas Gardens Dagenham RM8 2HX DC/02/00720/FUL Mr K S Obukoya Modification of condition no. 2 Parsloes of decision notice TP/370/86 to allow conversion of garage into habitable room 7 Pasture Road Dagenham RM9 5BJ DC/02/00723/FUL C Gillings Erection of single storey rear Longbridge extension 67 Shirley Gardens Barking IG11 9XB DC/02/00733/FUL Mrs P Mehaleb Erection of first floor extension Thames above garage to form bedroom 21 Keel Close Barking IG11 OXR DC/02/00736/FUL Mr & Mrs J Erection of single storey side River O’Callaghan and rear extension 105 Orchard Road Dagenham RM10 9PU
Page 132 DC/02/00737/FUL Maiden Outdoor Retention of 3 x 48 sheet Heath Advertising Ltd advertisement hoardings with overhead illumination Devonish Builder’s Yard Becontree Heath Wood Lane Dagenham DC/02/00742/FUL Mr & Mrs Robertson Erection of single storey rear Alibon extension 35 Meadow Road Dagenham RM9 5PR
Page 133 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 134