London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Notice of Meeting

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Notice of Meeting

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD

Tuesday, 28 August 2007 - 7:00 pm Council Chamber, Town Hall, Barking

Members: Councillor J R Denyer (Chair), Councillor I S Jamu (Deputy Chair); Councillor R W Bailey, Councillor Mrs S J Baillie, Councillor W F L Barns, Councillor S Carroll, Councillor C J Fairbrass, Councillor M A R Fani, Councillor D Hemmett, Councillor J K Jarvis, Councillor S Kallar, Councillor Mrs V M Rush, Councillor L Rustem and Councillor Mrs M M West

R. A. Whiteman 21.08.2007 Chief Executive

Contact Officer: Margaret Freeman Tel. 020 8227 2134 Fax: 020 8227 2171 Minicom: 020 8227 2685 E-mail: [email protected]

Members who are not members of the Development Control Boards may speak at a meeting with the agreement of the Chair. Councillors should sit separately from members of the Development Control Board and they should declare whether they have had any contact with the applicant / objector / property owner or their agents, and whether they are speaking on behalf of a third party and, if so, who (Members’ Code of Conduct for Planning Matters)

AGENDA 1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declaration of Members' Interests

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting.

3. Minutes - To confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2007 (Pages 1 - 4)

New Planning Applications Ward

4. Church Elm Public House and Car Park - DC Village 07/00725/FUL (Pages 5 - 33)

5. 61 Grosvenor Road Dagenham - DC/07/00727/FUL Whalebone (Pages 35 - 43)

6. 14 Marston Avenue Dagenham DC/07/00754/FUL Heath (Pages 45 - 57)

7. 4 Tolworth Parade East Road Chadwell Heath Chadwell DC/07/00766/FUL (Pages 59 - 63) Heath

8. 23 Marston Avenue Dagenham DC/07/00662/FUL Heath (Pages 65 - 73)

9. 84c Westminster Gardens Barking DC/07/00769/FUL Thames (Pages 75 - 81)

10. Eastbury Infants School Barking DC/07/00580/REG3 Eastbury (Pages 83 - 87)

11. 1 Woodlands Avenue Chadwell Heath Whalebone DC/07/00746/FUL (Pages 89 - 99)

12. Leys Primary School Dagenham DC/07/00597/REG3 Village (Pages 101 - 113)

13. LB Havering Planning Application Consultation - Plots Gascoigne 10-12 Beam Reach 5, off Consul Ave and Marsh Way, Rainham, Havering (Pages 115 - 120)

14. Town Planning Appeals (Page 121)

15. Delegated Decisions - 9 July to 27 July 2007 (Pages 123 - 143)

16. Any other public items which the Chair decides are urgent

17. To consider whether it would be appropriate to pass a resolution to exclude the public and press from the remainder of the meeting due to the nature of the business to be transacted.

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, with reference to the relevant legislation (the relevant paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended). There are no such items at the time of preparing this agenda.

18. Any confidential or exempt items which the Chair decides are urgent

- oOo -

This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 3

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD

Tuesday, 31 July 2007 (7:00 - 7:30 pm)

Present: Councillor J R Denyer (Chair), Councillor I S Jamu (Deputy Chair), Councillor R W Bailey, Councillor Mrs S J Baillie, Councillor W F L Barns, Councillor S Carroll, Councillor M A R Fani, Councillor D Hemmett, Councillor S Kallar and Councillor L Rustem

Apologies: Councillor C J Fairbrass, Councillor Mrs V Rush and Councillor Mrs M M West

43. Declaration of Members' Interests

There were no declarations of interest.

44. Minutes (3 July 2007)

Agreed.

45. Members' Code of Conduct for Planning Matters

Received and noted a report outlining proposed changes to the Members Code of Conduct for Planning Matters, following publication by the Government of the new Model Code of Conduct for Members which was adopted by the Assembly on 25 July 2007.

46. 77 Westfield Road Dagenham (DC0700530/FUL)

Agreed to refuse planning permission for the erection of a two-bedroom detached house within side garden for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development by virtue of its siting, location and design would appear bulky and overbearing in appearance resulting in loss of light and visual impact to neighbouring properties and in particular number 79 Westfield Road, contrary to policies DE1 and H13 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995).

2. The development does not make satisfactory off-street car parking provision and as such would result in additional parking pressures along Westfield Road, contrary to policy H17 and the Interim Car Parking Standards (January 2002) of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995).

3. The proposed dwelling has not been designed to Lifetime Homes Standards and as such could not be adapted in order to meet any future changing needs of occupiers and as such is contrary to policy 3A.4 of the London Plan.

4. The proposed siting of the new dwelling does not address the street or

Page 1 respect the pattern of development in the locality and would set an undesirable precedent for other similar proposals in the area contrary to policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995).

47. 1 Park Drive Dagenham (DC0700598/FUL)

Agreed to refuse planning permission for the erection of two storey side extension, one and two storey rear extension and rear and side dormer windows in connection with conversion of house into 2 no. one bedroom and 2 no. two bedroom flats for the following reasons:

1. The proposed arrangement of private amenity space results in a poor and cramped layout to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers contrary to Policy H15 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed side dormer window would by reason of its size, scale, design and siting be obtrusive and out of keeping to the detriment of the visual amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and the appearance of the street scene, contrary to policies H22 DE1, and Appendix 7 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed development fails to provide adequate internal habitable floorspace and has a poor arrangement of accommodation failing to provide for convenience of use to the detriment of residential amenity of future occupiers and contrary to policy H16 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and policy BP6 of the Local Development Framework.

48. 20 Chadway Dagenham (DC0700457/FUL)

Agreed to refuse planning permission for loft conversion involving construction of a side and rear dormer window in connection with converting the property into 2 no two-bedroom flats for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development by reason of the sizing, location and design of the side dormer window will result in an unacceptable form of development that will unbalance this pair of semi-detached dwellings and be out of character with the existing building and surrounding area, contrary to Policy H22 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995).

2. The flats do not provide sufficient internal habitable floorspace, and as such would result in sub-standard units of accommodation detrimental to the living standards enjoyed by any future occupiers of the flats, contrary to policies H10 and H16 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995).

49. 26 Rosslyn Road Barking (DC0700641/FUL)

Agreed to grant planning permission for the conversion of property into 2 on bedroom flats subject to the following conditions:

Page 2

1. B1 – Time Limit 2. O1 – Details of Dustbin Enclosures

50. 14 Sterry Road Dagenham (DC0700627/FUL) *

Agreed to grant planning permission for the erection of a first floor rear extension and a two storey side extension in connection with converting the property into two flats subject to the following conditions:

1. B.1 Time Limit 2. O.2 Approved Dustbin Enclosures 3. Q.3 Matching Facing Materials 4. 1.6 Completion of Parking Areas 5. The use shall not be commenced until sound insulation measures have been carried out within the premises in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include additional insulation to the party walls.

51. 49 Canberra Crescent Dagenham (DC0700606/FUL)*

Agreed to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing single storey side extension and erection of two storey side extension and part single, part two storey rear extension in connection with converting the property into 1 no. one bedroom flat and 1 no. two bedroom flat subject to the following conditions:

1. BO1 Time Limit 2. QO3 Matching Facing Materials 3. I6 Completion of Parking Areas 4. Approved Dustbin Enclosures 5. The development shall not commence until details and location of all boundary fences and walls have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no part of the development shall be occupied until the approved fences and walls for that part have been provided. The approved fences and walls shall be retained unless the Local Planning Authority gives prior written approval to their removal. 6. The use shall not be commenced until sound insulation measures have been carried out within the premises in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include additional insulation to the party walls.

52. Pending Planning Applications to be determined by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation

Received and noted details of the following applications:

1. 06/01251/OUT – Town Square, Clockhouse Avenue, 10-26 Ripple Road and Axe Street, Barking

2. 07/00576/FUL – Axe Street, Barking

3. 07/00476/FUL – 2 Hindmans Way, Dagenham

Page 3 4. 06/01136/FUL – Chequers Lane, Dagenham

53. Town Planning Appeals

Received and noted details of two appeals lodged:

1. 07/00127/FUL – 26 Beccles Drive, Barking

2. 07/00407/FUL – 8 Brook Avenue, Dagenham

54. Delegated Decisions - 11 June to 27 June 2007

Received and noted details of delegated decisions for the period 11 June to 27 June 2007.

* Public speakers were present.

Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 4

Plan: A DC/07/00725/FUL Ward: Village

Address: Church Elm public house and car park, Church Elm Lane, Dagenham, RM10 9QS Development: Mixed use development providing a public library, customer first centre, retail floorspace and 82 no. residential units Applicant: Bouygues UK

Summary: This application seeks full planning permission for the development of the Church Elm public house site at the junction of Church Elm Lane and Heathway. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing buildings on-site and replacement with a library, customer first centre and retail unit on the ground floor with residential accommodation above.

This application follows on from the grant of outline planning permission last year for a mixed use scheme to provide a library, customer first centre / district housing office with associated commercial and residential floorspace. The current proposal involves a slightly smaller site area and is submitted as a full planning application. The following report assesses the planning issues raised by the proposals and recommends that planning permission is granted.

Recommendation(s)

Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. B01 – time limit; 2. F04 – hard landscaping; 3. I12 – cycle parking; 4. M04 – construction hours; 5. O01 – dustbin enclosures; 6. P01 – boundary treatments; 7. Q01 – samples of finishing materials; 8. Prior to the commencement of development a travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The travel plan shall include details of measures to reduce the use of private cars by users, occupiers and staff at the development and shall encourage more sustainable forms of transport. The approved travel plan measures shall be implemented and permanently maintained from the completion of the development. 9. No development shall take place until the local planning authority has been provided with an independently verified Code for Sustainable Homes report that achieves a level of 3 for the flats and a BREEAM assessment report that achieves a rating of ‘very good’ for public areas. The approved scheme shall then be constructed in accordance with these details. A certificated Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM post construction review, or other verification process agreed with the local planning authority, shall be provided confirming that the agreed standards have been met prior to the first use / occupation of the development. 10. Prior to the commencement of development details of external lighting, CCTV, access control a nd any other measures to reduce the risk of crime shall be

Page 5 submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first use / occupation of the building.

Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Matthew Gallagher Team Leader Tel: 020 8227 3552 Development Control Fax: 020 8227 3916 E-mail: [email protected]

1.0 Introduction and Description of Development:

1.1 The application site comprises a roughly rectangular shaped parcel of land forming a corner plot at the junction of Heathway and Church Elm Lane. The site has a frontage to Heathway of some 35m and a return frontage to Church Elm Lane of 80m with a site area of approximately 0.3 hectares. The buildings currently on-site are the former Church Elm public house and its adjoining former function hall now used as an indoor market known as “The Plaza”. The Church Elm is no longer used as a public house and is currently operated as a restaurant / take-away and informal church. The site also includes a car park immediately to the east of the Church Elm building which is used as a hand car wash. The site boundary also includes access, servicing and vehicle turning areas to the rear of the Church Elm and the adjoining post office.

1.2 The Church Elm building dates from 1929 and comprises a symmetrical two- storey central element with adjoining single storey wings. Immediately to the north of the site facing onto Heathway is the three-storey post office building. Residential units in Millard Terrace also border the site along its northern edge. Two and three-storey retail uses are located opposite the site to the west on Heathway whilst two-storey terraced dwellings are opposite the site on the southern side of Church Elm Lane. Ground levels fall from north-to south across the site. The Heathway frontage of the site is located within a retail area as defined within the UDP. The eastern part of the site is not specifically allocated to any particular land use.

1.3 The planning application seeks full planning for a mixed use development comprising the following elements:

public library; customer first centre / one stop shop; retail floorspace; residential units.

1.4 At ground2 floor level the proposed accommodation would comprise a retail unit of 399 m located adjacent to post office. A combined public library and customer first centre / one stop shop would be located at ground floor level

‘wrapping’ around the corner2 of Heathway and Church Elm Lane with a gross floor space of some 865 m . The proposed building would extend at ground

Page 6 floor level along the Church Elm Lane frontage providing 2 no. residential units and ancillary floorspace. The library accommodation would also be provided at first floor level with a total of 890 sq.m. floorspace. The remainder of the first floor and remaining upper levels of the building would comprise residential accommodation. The new building would comprise a part five and part six- storey structure configured as follows:

Ground Floor retail unit one stop shop / customer first centre public library 2 no. 1-bed / 2 person flats;

Mezzanine Floor 3 no. 1-bed / 2 person flats 1 no. 2-bed / 3 person flats;

First Floor public library 7 no. 1-bed / 2 person flats 1 no. 2-bed / 3 person flat 2 no. 2-bed / 4 person flats;

Second Floor 17 no. 1-bed / 2 person flats 1 no. 2-bed / 3 person flat 3 no. 2-bed / 4 person flats;

Third Floor 17 no. 1-bed / 2 person flats 1 no. 2-bed / 3 person flat 3 no. 2-bed / 4 person flats

Fourth Floor 14 no. 1-bed / 2 person flats 2 no. 2-bed / 4 person flats;

Fifth Floor 1 no. 1-bed / 2 person flat 6 no. 2-bed / 3 person flats 1 no. 2-bed / 4 person flats.

Residential accommodation therefore provides 61 no. 1-bed / 2 person flats, 10

no. 2-bed / 3 person flats and 11 no. 2-bed / 4 person2 flats. Public library, retail and customer first floorspace2 totals some 2,154 m within a total built floorspace of 7,367 m .

1.5 By way of background following a Best Value inspection of the library service in 2002 a recommendation suggested that the number and location of libraries was reviewed. A subsequent report in 2003 suggested a new library for Dagenham and rationalisation of existing smaller libraries. Dagenham Heathway was recommended as a preferred location for the new library. Separately the business plan for Customer First has identified the need for customer contact centres in the Borough where customers can access a range of Council services. A subsequent Regeneration and Public Realm Strategy for Dagenham Heathway from 2005 identified the application site as the preferred location for a library and Customer First centre. The Council is seeking to

Page 7 acquire the site through compulsory purchase via its capacity as an acquiring authority. A compulsory purchase order was made in March and a public inquiry into the objections raised against the order is scheduled in September. To secure the implementation of the scheme the Council is working in partnership with the developers Bouygues UK who are the applicants for this proposal.

1.6 The application proposes a 5 and 6-storey structure wrapping around the Heathway and Church Elm Lane frontages. The building would be of a modern design finished with facing render, brick and utilising a distinctive mesh screen with balcony details. At first floor level adjacent to the road junction the library element would project out in the form of a glass ‘box’ forming a focal point to announce the entrance to the library.

1.7 The existing vehicular access which services retail units on the eastern side of Heathway would be used to access delivery areas at the rear of the building. A turning head for commercial vehicles would be maintained within the site. Provision for 2 no. parking spaces for use by disabled users would be located at the eastern end of the site to the rear of the 2 no. ground floor residential units. No other car parking is provided within the application site.

2.0 Background:

2.1 The site has an extensive planning history detailed as follows:

Church Elm Public House –

60/00185/DAG – Use of forecourt for sale of fruit and vegetables – Refused;

61/00038/DAG – Change of use to betting office of room – Approved;

61/00092/DAG – Use for the sale of fruit and vegetables from a stall on forecourt – Approved;

63/00032/ADAG – Two illuminated signs – Approved;

64/00034/ADAG – Advertisement board on forecourt – Approved;

69/00040/ADV – Internally illuminated transom sign and internally illuminated box sign – Approved;

69/00168/TP – External alterations – Approved;

88/00542/TP – OUTLINE: Demolition of public house and redevelopment to provide new public house and retail shop – Approved;

89/00738/TP – Alterations to front elevation and provision of ramped entrance – Approved;

Page 8 90/00012/ADV – Externally illuminated and non-illuminated signage – Approved;

90/00560/TP – Use of part of public house as an indoor market – Withdrawn;

90/00560/TP1 – External alterations and construction of ramped access – Approved;

06/00235/OUT – Outline planning application: mixed use scheme to provide a district library, customer first centre and district housing office with associated residential / commercial floorspace – Approved.

3.0 Consultations:

3.1 This application has been publicised via a site notice, press notice and consultation with 104 surrounding occupiers. Two letters of objection have been received referring to:

loss of privacy; noise during construction; lack of parking; design / finishing materials.

3.2 The following consultation replies have been received:

Essex & Suffolk Water – draw attention to the position of water mains in the area and point out that no buildings or structures should be erected within 3m of these mains;

Fire Brigade (water) – no additional fire hydrants are required;

Crime Prevention Design Advisor – recommendations submitted in relation to the internal design of the building. These comments have been forwarded to the applicant.

Access Officer – detailed comments received concerning internal layout.

Environmental Sustainability Team – request more detailed information regarding energy efficiency and cycle storage. Recommend that the public elements of the building achieve a BREEAM rating of excellent.

Environmental Protection Team – no comments received.

Traffic & Road Safety Section – no comments received.

4.0 Development Plan Policy:

4.1 UDP Policies: AT2 Libraries; C2 Community Facilities;

Page 9 S4 Dagenham Heathway; H14 Residential Amenity.

Interim Parking standards

4.2 Emerging LDF policies: CM2 Managing housing growth; CM5 Town centre hierarchy; CR5 Sustainable transport; CC4 Social infrastructure; CE1 Vibrant and prosperous town centres; CP1 Arts and cultural identity; BC6 Mixed use development; BE2 Development in town centres; BP1 Culture, leisure and tourism.

4.3 London Plan Policies: 2A.5 Town Centres; 3A.1 Increasing Housing Supply; 3A.15 Social Infrastructure; 3D.1 Supporting Town Centres; 4A.7 Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy; 4B.3 Maximising the Potential of Sites.

4.4 National Planning Guidance: PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3 Housing; PPS6 Planning for Town Centres; PPG13 Transport

5.0 Analysis:

5.1 The issues to be considered in this case are the principle of the land use, design and layout matters, impact on surrounding amenity, sustianability and highways implications.

5.2 Land Use Policy

UDP Policies

5.3 The site of the Church Elm public house, excluding the car park, is defined in the UDP as forming part of the Heathway retail area but is not located within any defined frontage. The eastern part of the application site comprising the car park area is not allocated for any specific land use in the UDP.

5.4 Policy S4 of the UDP specifically refers to Dagenham Heathway and divides the shopping frontage into a number of parades where a general presumption to retain retail uses applies. The site area of the extant outline planning consent (06/00235/OUT) included the site of nos. 214-216 Heathway which is currently in Class A1 retail use as a post office. Although the approved outline

Page 10 scheme would involve the loss of this unit, retail floorspace was proposed as part of the application and it is therefore likely that no net loss of retail floorspace would result.

5.5 The current planning application does not include the post office site but would involve the redevelopment of the indoor market. However, the application proposes the construction of a new Class A1 retail unit with a floorspace of 400 sq.m. which would effectively replace the floorspace lost by the redevelopment of the indoor market. Assessed against Policy S4 of the UDP the amount of existing retail floorspace on the site would be retained and consequently there is no conflict with policy.

5.6 The Community Facilities chapter of the UDP includes Policy C2 which refers to premises for facilities for the community, including a specific reference to both advice centres and libraries. This policy sets out a presumption in favour of granting permission for such community facilities subject to compliance with detailed criteria relating to need, effect on amenity, highways implications, scale, design, proximity to public transport and local services and access.

5.7 On the question of need the Best Value Review of Library Services (November 2002) recommended that a new library was provided at Heathway to meet the modern demands placed on the library service. The need for customer contact centres in the Borough has similarly been identified following an Audit Commission report. The provision of a library and customer first centre at the Church Elm site therefore satisfy an identified need for these community facilities.

5.8 The report for planning application reference 06/00235/OUT presented to the Council’s Development Control Board included detailed reference to the potential impact of the outline proposals on surrounding amenity. The report concluded that there would be no significant harm to adjoining occupiers by reason of loss of sunlight, daylight or privacy. The impact of the current proposal on surrounding amenity is considered later in this report.

5.9 Highways matters were considered at outline planning application stage where the report to Development Control Board noted that the Church Elm site occupies an accessible location close to bus and train links. Given the accessibility of the site a relaxation of car parking requirements was considered appropriate. The highways assessment of the current planning application is detailed below.

5.10 Policy C2 also refers to the scale and design of proposals, proximity to local amenities and access. The outline planning permission reserved design and external appearance for subsequent approval however the current full planning application proposes a modern, high quality building which has emerged from extensive pre-application negotiations. As noted above the Church Elm site occupies an accessible location close to public transport links, shops and local services. The proposed building would provide inclusive access arrangements conforming to Part M of the Building Regulations. It is therefore concluded that the requirements of UDP policy C2 are satisfied.

Page 11

5.11 Policy AT2 of the UDP refers specifically to libraries and states that the Council will seek to improve libraries and associated services. The proposed new library would provide a range of modern library facilities including a children’s area, an ICT learning hub and meeting / conference facilities. The proposed development of the site is therefore supported by Policy AT2.

5.12 In light of the above it can be seen that UDP policies support the redevelopment of the site and provide the basis for the extant outline planning permission for mixed use development of the site.

Emerging LDF Policies

5.13 The Council’s LDF Core Strategy preferred options report was published in March 2007 and was the subject of public consultation until 30 April 2007. A number of Core Strategy policies are relevant to the site.

5.14 Policy CM2 refers to housing growth and states that the Council will plan for a minimum growth of 1,190 additional units per year from 2007/8 to 2016/17. The policy promotes the efficient use of land and higher density development in order to achieve this growth in housing. The policy states that the Council will, inter-alia:

prioritise and optimise the development of previously developed land; increase the density of new developments; create car free developments in appropriate locations; encourage the multi-functional use of spaces.

5.15 The development of the site would create 82 no. new residential units within a mixed use, high density scheme involving the use of previously developed land. The proposed development would also be car free and accordingly it is considered that that the requirements of Policy CM2 would be achieved.

5.16 Policy CM5 entitled “Town Centre Hierarchy” supports the vitality and viability of town centres and states that retail and other town centre development of an appropriate scale and nature will be supported. The retail element of the proposed redevelopment is supported by this policy.

5.17 Policy CR5 encourages sustainable transport opportunities as part of new development. In order to reduce the need to travel the Council will, inter-alia,:

ensure new shops, services, community facilities and major trip generating development are located in areas of maximum accessibility by non-car modes; encourage mixed-use developments.

The location of the site is well served by rail and bus routes and proposes a mix of retail, community and residential uses on one site. Policy CR5 therefore supports the proposal.

Page 12 5.18 Policy CC4 states that the Council will support proposals which lead to the provision of additional community facilities. The policy defines community facilities as including libraries. The policy states that such facilities should be accessible to all members of the public and should be located close to public transport and, where possible, as part of mixed use development. Given the location of the site and the nature of the proposed redevelopment Policy CC4 supports the scheme.

5.19 Policy CE1 refers generally to town centres and their uses and functions. The policy states that commercial, retail and other town centre developments should be focused and consolidated within the Borough’s hierarchy of district and neighbourhood centres. With reference to use, the policy seeks to maintain retail frontage at ground floor level within defined retail frontages but a greater flexibility of uses may be permitted elsewhere in other parts of the town centre. Mixed use schemes incorporating elements such as housing, offices, community and leisure facilities are encouraged by the Policy. The development of the site would result in a mix of uses supported by this policy.

5.20 Policy CP1 encourages the provision of leisure and cultural facilities and states that such facilities will be particularly encouraged as part of mixed use developments. The redevelopment of the site as proposed is supported by this policy.

5.21 The LDF Borough Wide Development Policies preferred options report was published and subject to public consultation at the same time as the Core Strategy preferred options report. A number of policies from this document are relevant to the site.

5.22 Policy BC6 (mixed use development) identifies such development as being particularly appropriate for district and local centres and sites with good public transport accessibility such as the area around Dagenham Heathway station. The proposed mixed use development of this accessible site would be supported by policy BC6.

5.23 Criteria for assessing development in town centres is set out in Policy BE2. This policy makes reference to a number of detailed design guidelines and also refers to vitality, viability and regeneration. Under this heading developments should, inter alia, promote a function compatible with the prime retail function and achieve a high degree of street activity and pedestrian movement. It is considered that the mix of uses proposed is complementary to the main retail function. It is also considered that the proposed library and customer first centre would generate a high level of pedestrian movement and footfall.

5.24 Policy BP1 refers to culture, leisure and tourism in the Borough and states that proposals for new facilities should, inter alia, be located in accessible locations. It is considered that the development of the Church Elm site would comply with this policy.

Page 13 5.25 In conclusion under this heading the principle of the redevelopment of the site is supported by a number of emerging LDF policies which particularly encourage the provision of mixed use development which maximise the use of the site in highly accessible locations.

London Plan Policies

5.26 The London Plan (February 2004) is the spatial development strategy for Greater London and therefore partly forms the development plan for the Borough. Alterations to the Plan dealing with housing provision targets were published in December 2006 and form part of the adopted London Plan. The relevant London Plan policies applicable to the site are detailed below.

5.27 Policy 2A.5 (Town Centres) states that UDP policies should, inter-alia: provide for a full range of town centre functions including retail, leisure, employment services and community facilities; seek to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres including maximising housing provision through high density, mixed use development.

The proposed redevelopment includes a number of the uses mentioned by the policy and involves high density residential development. It is considered that the proposals comply with this policy.

5.28 Policies 3A.1 and 3A.2 refer to increasing London’s supply of housing and Borough housing targets respectively. Policy 3A.2 refers to Table 3A.1 which sets out Borough targets for the provision of additional homes. Both of these policies and the accompanying table have been replaced by Alterations to the London Plan adopted in December 2006. The updated Policy 3A.2 states that Borough development plan documents should identify new sources of supply having regard to redevelopment in town centres and intensification of housing provision through development at higher densities. The proposals involve the provision of upper storey residential units at high density as part of a town centre redevelopment and, as such, complies with London Plan policy. Table 3A.1 sets out Borough housing targets for the period 2007/8 to 2016/17 and suggests an annual provision of 1,190 units for the Borough. The proposed development of 82 no. units would make a valuable contribution to the Borough target.

5.29 London-wide targets for affordable housing provision are set out in Policy 3A.7. The full planning application currently under consideration by the Council proposes 35% affordable housing provision totalling 29 units based on a mix of 1-bedroom 2-person, 2-bed 2-person and 2-bedroom 4-person units. These affordable housing units would make a contribution towards the Borough’s stock of social housing.

5.30 Policy 3A.15 of the London Plan addresses the protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities. Adequate provision for these facilities is mentioned by the policy as being particularly important in major areas of new development and regeneration. The policy seeks to ensure that appropriate facilities, such as libraries, are provided within easy reach by

Page 14 walking and public transport. The development of the proposed customer first centre and library close to Dagenham Heathway station would comply with the aspirations of this policy.

5.31 Policy 3D.1 (Supporting Town Centres) encourages enhanced access to goods and services and the strengthening of a wider role for town centres. To achieve these aims UDP policies should, inter alia,:

encourage, retail, leisure and other related uses in town centres; enhance the quality of retail and other consumer services in town centres; support a wide role for town centres as locations for leisure and cultural activities, as well as business and housing; require the location of appropriate health, education and other public and community services in town centres.

The provision of a library, customer first centre, retail floorspace and housing is clearly supported by this policy.

5.32 Boroughs are encouraged to prevent the loss of essential convenience or specialist retail facilities and encourage mixed use development by Policy 3D.3. The proposal would replace the floorspace within the Plaza indoor market in the form a new, purpose-built retail facility. Accordingly the proposal raises no conflict with this London Plan policy.

5.33 Policy 4B.3 requires Boroughs to ensure that development proposals achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context, design principles and public transport capacity. Density ranges for residential development are set out in Table 4B.1 accompanying this policy. The full planning application currently under consideration involves a site area of some 0.31 hectares resulting in a residential density of 264 dwellings per hectare based upon a development of 82 units. Table 4B.1 would suggest a density range of 165-275 dwellings per hectare on the basis of the public transport accessibility (PTAL) level of 4 and an ‘urban’ setting for the site. An urban setting in considered reasonable based upon the London Plan definition of “dense development, with a mix of different uses and buildings of three to four storeys, such as town centres”. The proposed development therefore accords with the density range within the London Plan and would result in the efficient use of the site.

5.34 In light of the above policies it is concluded that the proposed mix of retail, community and residential uses is supported by London Plan policy in this town centre location. The proposal would provide for residential accommodation, including affordable housing provision, at an accessible location and would make efficient use of the site. London Plan policy therefore supports the redevelopment.

National Planning Policy

5.35 There are four national planning policy documents which are considered to be relevant to the development of the site namely Planning Policy Statement

Page 15 (PPS) 1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” (2005), PPS3 “Housing” (2006), PPS6 “Planning for Town Centres” (2005) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13 “Transport” (2001).

5.36 PPS1 generally promotes the delivery of sustainable development, the development of strong, vibrant and cohesive communities and high quality inclusive design. Under the heading of delivering sustainable development paragraph 27 of PPS1 states that local planning authorities should promote urban regeneration to improve the well being of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for people living in those communities. This paragraph goes on to state that local planning authorities should provide improved access for all to leisure and community facilities by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services on foot, bicycle or public transport. Developments which attract a large number of people, especially retail and leisure development should be located in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability, social inclusion and sustainable patterns of development. Paragraph 27 of PPS1 also promotes the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development and the use of suitably located previously developed land and buildings. It is considered that the redevelopment of the site as proposed would meet all of the objectives of PPS1 mentioned above

5.37 PPS1 also encourages good design as a key element in achieving sustainable development. Paragraph 33 states that planning authorities should plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. The design of the building has evolved after extensive discussions between the developer and the Council. It is considered that this has resulted in the well designed facility providing a new local landmark and strong architectural statement on this prominent corner plot.

5.38 PPS3 was published in 2006 and became a material consideration for planning applications after 1 April 2007. In summary this document seeks to ensure that the right quantity of housing is delivered with the right quality and ensuring the right mix. Paragraph 20 of PPS6 notes that the characteristics of a mixed community are a variety of housing, particularly in terms of tenure and price and a mix of different households. Within the context of the town centre location and position of the residential accommodation at upper storey levels it is considered that a mix is achieved. The full planning application proposes a mix of 1-bedroom 2-person, 2-bedroom 3-person and 2-bedroom 4-person flats all built to lifetime homes standards and including wheelchair accessible housing. 35% of the units would be affordable. The residential element of the redevelopment would therefore provide a mix of accommodation in compliance with PPS3.

5.39 Suitable locations for housing are considered from paragraph 36 of PPS3 where Government policy is to ensure that housing is developed at locations which offer a range of community facilities with access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Paragraph 28 notes that in order to achieve sustainable

Page 16 development options for accommodating new housing growth may include mixed use town centre development. Clearly the provision of housing in a town centre location close to local services and transport infrastructure accords with Government policy.

5.40 Paragraph 1.3 of PPS6 notes that the key Government objective for town centres is to promote their vitality and viability by planning for the growth and development of existing centres and focusing development in existing centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all. Paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 list further objectives for town centres which can be summarised as follows:

making provision for a range of shopping, leisure and local services; supporting retail, leisure, tourism and other sectors; ensuring new development is accessible by a choice of means of transport; ensuring communities have access to a range of main town centre uses; delivery of sustainability through high density, mixed use development; promotion of high quality, inclusive design. It is considered that these objectives would be achieved through the redevelopment of the site as proposed.

5.41 With reference to housing in town centres paragraph 1.9 states that “housing will be an important element in most mixed use, multi storey developments”. The provision of upper storey residential units within the proposed redevelopment therefore accords with this aspect of policy guidance.

5.42 Under the heading of promoting growth and managing change in town centres paragraph 2.8 notes that, where centres are in decline, local planning authorities should asses the scope for consolidating and strengthening these centres by seeking to focus a wider range of services there. It is considered that the redevelopment proposals would achieve this aim.

5.43 Paragraphs 2.19-2.22 encourage high quality design and the efficient use of land in town centres. Paragraph 2.19 notes that well-designed public spaces and buildings are key elements that can improve the health, vitality and economic potential of a town centre. In Paragraph 2.20 it is suggested that local planning authorities formulate policies to encourage well-designed, higher density, multi-storey development including the promotion of mixed use development. The following paragraph (2.21) states that residential development should be encouraged above ground floor retail, leisure or other facilities within centres. Paragraph 2.22 generally encourages a diversification of uses within town centres. It is considered that the above paragraphs support the proposed redevelopment of the site.

5.44 The objectives of PPG13 (Transport), listed in paragraph 4, are to promote sustainable transport choices, promote accessibility to jobs, services etc by public transport and to reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

5.45 In order to deliver these objectives paragraph 6 directs that local planning authorities, in considering planning applications should:

Page 17

locate day to day facilities in local centre so that they are accessible to walking and cycling; accommodate housing within urban areas, planning for increased intensity of development for both housing and other uses at locations which are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling; ensure that development comprising jobs, shopping, leisure and services offers a realistic choice of access by public transport, walking and cycling.

It is considered that the location of the library, customer first centre, retail floorspace and housing at the Church Elm site would achieve these objectives.

5.46 From the examination of local, regional and national planning policies listed above it is clear that the mixed use, multi storey redevelopment of this highly accessible site complies with planning policies.

5.47 Design and Layout Issues

5.48 The footprint of the proposed building would largely replace the existing public house and shopping hall but would extend the built development along the Church Elm Lane frontage on the site of the car park area. An ‘L’ shaped building is therefore proposed with a strong building edge to both road frontages adjacent to the site.

5.49 The proposed building may be thought of as two connected blocks: Block A and Block B. Block A is essentially the site of the former public house and shopping hall and would contain the civic facilities at ground and first floor, the retail unit at ground floor and residential accommodation from the first floor upwards. This block would be 5 and 6 storeys in height. Block B extends along the Church Elm Lane frontage and contains ancillary accommodation and residential accommodation at ground floor level with 4 floors of flats over.

5.50 At ground floor level the frontage onto Heathway would comprise the proposed retail unit, adjacent to the post-office with the library and one stop shop wrapping-around the Heathway and Church Elm Lane Junction. A combined public entrance serving both of the civic facilities is indicated on the frontage to Heathway. Both the retail unit and library / one stop shop would incorporate extensive glazed shopfronts thereby providing an active and inviting street frontage. The glazed elements at ground floor level would continue onto the Church Elm Lane frontage however public access would be limited to a single entrance from Heathway. Further to the east along Church Elm Lane the ground floor of the building contains ancillary accommodation such as a plant room, bike store and entrances to upper floor apartments. The frontage of the building is therefore less ‘active’ away from the junction with Heathway. However, the presence of intermittent door openings assist in providing articulation to the elevation. At the eastern end of the building adjacent to the vehicular access 2no. residential units are proposed at ground floor level.

Page 18 5.51 The focus point of the building would be a distinctive projecting glazed ‘box’ at first floor level located at the corner point of the building. This box would extend out over the public footpath providing library accommodation. This feature would provide a strong visual reference point and announcement for the building when viewed along Heathway. The feature would also terminate long distance views from along Dagenham Avenue to the south-west of the site. At first floor level along the remainder of the frontage to Heathway would also comprise library accommodation.

5.52 The outline planning application2 from last year proposed a total gross built floorspace of 5,500 m . On the assumption that the footprint of the building would largely replicate the existing footprint of the public house and shopping hall it was assumed that the outline scheme would have involved a 3, 4 and

part 5-storey building. The current scheme, involving2 a slightly smaller site area, proposes a gross floorspace of 8,070 m . In order to accommodate the increase in floorspace Block A facing the Heathway is proposed to be 6-storeys whilst Block B facing Church Elm Lane would be 5-storeys in height. Members will be aware that the district centre frontage contains a range of buildings varying from 1 to 3 storeys with taller residential units located in Millard Terrace. As seen from the Heathway opposite the site ground levels fall towards the Church Elm Lane junction with the result that the new building would be of a similar height to existing buildings closer to the station. Church Elm Lane is a largely residential road where a domestic scales dominates. However, there is a significant break in the built frontage on the northern side of this road in between the proposed building and no. 51. The 5-storey mass of Block B would therefore not be ‘read’ alongside conventional two-storey housing. Accordingly it is considered that the bulk and massing of the proposals are acceptable.

5.53 The structure would be of a modern, flat roof design employing coloured-glass panels, timber cladding and mesh screens to add visual interest. At ground floor level the facing materials of the building would comprise brickwork with a glazed shopfront and library entrance to the Heathway elevation. Glazing would also characterise the Heathway elevation at first floor level and the glass ‘box’ is partly wrapped around onto the Church Elm Lane elevation. At the residential levels on both elevations facing render is proposed with coloured glass balcony details. The submitted plans suggest a variety of red, green, blue and yellow balcony details. The elevations to block A also propose a mesh screen positioned in front of the main external wall. This screen would provide solar shading and add visual interest to the façade. It is considered that the proposed finishing materials to the building, in combination with its massing, would result in a modern facility providing a landmark feature on this corner plot.

5.54 Gross floorspace2 for the proposed2 residential units ranges from a minimum of 40.1 m to a maximum2 87.3 m . All but one of the units has a gross floorspace greater than2 45 m The smallest residential unit (no.82)2 has a gross floorspace of 40.1 m comprised2 of a bedroom area (12.5 m and a kitchen / living room area of 12.7 m . This unit is substandard in floorspace as assessed against UDP policy. However, being located on the top residential floor, the unit would

Page 19 have access to an extensive communal roof terrace to offset the shortfall in

indoor2 space. The remainder of the units2 have a gross floorspace of at least 45 m and 32 of the 82 units exceed 50 m floorspace. Despite the deficiency in the accommodation provided by unit no. 82 it is considered that satisfactory floorspace is provided across of range of unit sizes.

5.55 As mentioned above an extensive communal roof terrace would be available for

the 8 no. flats located on the uppermost residential floor. In addition2 to this roof area balcony space private balcony spacend totallingth some 2.8 m would be provided for a total of 23 flats on the 2 to 4 floors. These balconies would be positioned on the south and west-facing elevations of the building. A number of flats would also have views either across or onto a landscaped roof deck above the library. Taking into account the town centre location of the site is it considered that reasonable provision of private amenity has been provided where possible.

5.56 All of the residential units are designed to be Lifetime Homes compliant in accordance with the requirements of the London Plan. A total of 29 residential flats would be provided as affordable housing equating to 35% of the total units. Ordinarily the provision of affordable would be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement. However, at the present moment the applicant does not have an interest in the land and therefore could not be party to the signing of such an agreement. In order that affordable housing is provided on-site in accordance with policy a clause could be inserted into the development agreement between the Council and its development partner (Bouygues UK).

5.57 Amenity Considerations

5.58 Existing residential properties are located to the south of the site on the opposite side of Church Elm Lane, to the north in Millard Terrace and to the west above the retail units in Heathway.

5.59 Two-storey terraced houses are located to the south and nos. 2-24 Church Elm Lane would face directly onto the new building. Given the orientation of the site in relation to these neighbours there would be no loss of sunlight or overshadowing. UDP policy H14 seeks to protect residential amenity and refers to Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines for assessing impact on daylight. The planning application is accompanied by a daylight report investigating the potential impact of the development on nos. 2-24. The report refers to average daylight factor (ADF) and, as applied to ground and first floor windows serving habitable rooms facing the development, the BRE tests are satisfied. Habitable windows within the new development would face nos. 2-24 at a distance of between 19-20m but such a relationship is commonplace in any urban area and would not be harmful to amenity.

5.60 To the north of the proposed Block B are existing upper floor residential flats numbered 45-52 Millard Terrace which are effectively built over the service yard adjacent to the former public house car park. There would be a distance of between 15 and 19m between existing and proposed windows but windows to the flats in Millard Terrace would remain at a higher level than the proposed

Page 20 block. Consequently there would be no loss of outlook or privacy for the neighbouring occupiers. At the north-eastern corner of the site flats at nos. 53 and 54 Millard Terrace face eastwards towards the northern part of Block A at a distance of some 26m. However, views from these flats are not directly towards the new Block but at an angle and no significant loss of amenity would result in these circumstances.

5.61 On the opposite (western) side of Heathway are residential flats above retail units which would look towards the main front elevation of the new building. These views would be across the Heathway at a minimum distance of some 23m. No material loss of amenity would result from this relationship. A concern has been expressed regarding construction noise from a resident in Heathway opposite the site. Heathway is already a busy north-south vehicular route in the Borough and relatively high ambient noise levels would be expected. However, if Members were minded to grant planning permission a condition to control construction hours would be reasonable to address this concern.

5.62 Highways Issues

5.63 The planning application is accompanied by a transport assessment (TA) which provides information on existing traffic and transport conditions, provides details of site access, parking and servicing and finally assesses the potential trip generation of the development.

5.64 The planning application proposes the provision of 2no. parking spaces only which would be for the use of occupiers of wheelchair accessible flats on the ground floor (units 1 and 2). No other car parking is provided on-site although a turning head for service and delivery vehicle is provided within the development. However, the site clearly occupies an accessible location close to Dagenham Heathway station. Furthermore bus route nos. 173, 174 and 175 serve Heathway, route no. 364 serves Reede Road / Parsloes Avenue and route no. 145 serves Church Elm Lane. The PTAL of the site is therefore good scoring 4 out of a possible 6. The Council’s Interim Parking Standards (2002) suggests that within a 400m radius of Dagenham Heathway station parking-free residential development may be considered acceptable. In considering the outline planning application last year Members accepted the principle of a parking-free development and, to an extent this principle has been established.

5.65 With reference to trip generation the proposed library will replace existing facilities in the local area and therefore existing trips to the library will be largely displaced although some new trips might be created with improved facilities. The TA suggests that the majority of trips to the library (71%) would be made by public transport and walking and, in terms of car-based trips, a maximum of 9 trips would be generated. A similar analysis for the customer first centre for both staff and customers indicates a peak of 25 car-based trips. The retail element of the scheme could potentially create a peak of 12 vehicle movements. Finally the residential element would be expected to generate a peak of 6 trips. It should be borne in mind that a number of the above trips may be combined such that a trip to the existing or proposed retail unit is combined

Page 21 with a visit to the library. In terms of highway capacity the TA concludes that the main site access and surrounding roads would continue to work effectively given the vehicle movements generated by the development.

5.66 Members will be aware of the proximity of the site to the multi-storey car park behind Millard Terrace. The TA includes a survey of use of this car park undertaken during weekdays in June. The car park contains a total of 256 spaces and surveys revealed a maximum occupancy of 117 vehicles or 46% of the total available spaces on a Friday lunchtime. It is clear that sufficient capacity exists in the car park to accommodate the parking demands associated with the development including the residential accommodation. The TA acknowledges that residential car parking around the site is restricted and that it may prove necessary for future residents of the development to be restricted from obtaining parking permits. Alternatively limited residential permits could be issued for use of the multi-storey where spare capacity exists.

5.67 In conclusion under this heading it is considered that the site occupies a location easily accessible to a range of transport modes. The capacity of the local highway network is sufficient to accommodate traffic movements associated with the development and spare capacity is available at the nearby car park. Accordingly no highways objections are raised against the scheme.

5.68 Sustainability Issues

5.69 The planning application is accompanied by an energy and sustainability report which establishes that the development will achieve Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 for the flats and a ‘very good BREEAM rating for public areas. The report incorporates a number of sustainability measures including passive solar design, high thermal mass, use of natural ventilation and energy efficient appliances. With reference to renewable energy the report considers a range of options in order to achieve the 10% target. A biomass boiler is proposed to serve the development which is estimated to reduce carbon emission by nearly 15%.

5.70 The applicant has stated that pre-assessment checks will be undertaken for BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes. Details of how the development will reach the agreed levels have been submitted. The development involves the re-use of a brownfield site within an accessible location and therefore contributes to the aims of sustainable development on a broad level.

5.71 Other Issues

5.72 Detailed comments have been submitted by the Borough’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor regarding boundary treatments, access control, windows, car parking as well as the internal layout of public areas. The development aspires to achieve Secure By Design status and revision to the plans reflecting the above comments have been made.

5.73 Conclusion

Page 22 5.74 The principle of the mixed use redevelopment has been established by the grant of planning permission from last year. The current application seeks full permission for a mixed use scheme in an accessible location providing high quality civic facilities and residential accommodation including affordable units. The development complies with planning policies and is considered acceptable with regard to highway implications, detailed design and impact on amenity. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted.

Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 24 Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 26 do not scale. © architecture plb

Notes 25.04.07 LBBD Design Review A For Comment 06.06.07 LBBD Design Review B For Comment See drawing 0634_GAD_440005 Elevation updated Glazed screen replaced with mesh screen Timber Cladding to Entrance Doors 19.06.07 Planning Review C

Aluminium Capping

PVC Windows

Render

Brick plinth

Mesh screens on metal sub frame

Exposed concrete finish

Roof Level

Fifth Floor

Fourth Floor

Key Third Floor

Second Floor

Page 27 church elm lane

First Floor

Ground Floor

Station Parade Block A - Library, One Stop Shop and Residential Accommodation Stair 3 Block A - Library, One Stop Shop and Residential Accommodation Block B - Residential Accomodation N 0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

Plan Icon

A 25.04.07 LBBD Design Review AL MS MS B 06.06.07 LBBD Design Review AL MS MS C 19.06.07 Planning Review AL MS MS

REV DATE REVISION HISTORY Drn Chk App

BOUYGUES UK

Elizabeth House 39, York Road LONDON, SE1 7NQ Tel. 020 7401 0020

St Thomas Street Winchester Hampshire SO23 9HD T 01962 842200 Dagenham Library F 01962 840962 See drawing 0634_GAD_440005 E [email protected] 0634

Proposed South Elevation Block A Sheet 1 of 2 Planning Drawings

Name Signature Date SCALE + FORMAT STATUS Designed AL 30.03.07 1:100 @A1 PLANNING Drawn By AL 30.03.07 DATE 1st ISSUE FILE NAME Checked MS 19.06.07 Approved MS 19.06.07 25.04.07 0634_GAD_440004

AREA LEVEL TRADE PROJECT SITE ISSUER TYPE SEQUENCE No. REV EXT SL A3 DLAEP L L V 4 4 0 0 0 4 C This page is intentionally left blank

Page 28 do not scale. © architecture plb

Notes 25.04.07 LBBD Design Review A For Comment

06.06.07 LBBD Design Review B For Comment See drawing 0634_GAD_440004 Elevation updated 19.06.07 Planning Review C

Aluminium Capping

PVC Windows

Timber Cladding to Entrance Doors

Render

Brick plinth

Metal framed balcony with coloured glass face panel

Roof Level

Third Floor Key

Second Floor Page 29 First Floor

Mezzanine Level

Ground Floor

Block A - Residential Accommodation Block B - Residential Accomodation Stair 5 Block B - Residential Accomodation Millard Terrace (behind) Park N 0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

Plan Icon

A 25.04.07 LBBD Design Review AL MS MS B 06.06.07 LBBD Design Review AL MS MS C 19.06.07 Planning Review AL MS MS

REV DATE REVISION HISTORY Drn Chk App

BOUYGUES UK

Elizabeth House 39, York Road LONDON, SE1 7NQ Tel. 020 7401 0020

St Thomas Street Winchester Hampshire SO23 9HD T 01962 842200 Dagenham Library F 01962 840962 See drawing 0634_GAD_440004 E [email protected] 0634

Proposed South Elevation Block B Sheet 2 of 2 Planning Drawings

Name Signature Date SCALE + FORMAT STATUS Designed AL 30.03.07 1:100 @A1 PLANNING Drawn By AL 30.03.07 DATE 1st ISSUE FILE NAME Checked MS 19.06.07 Approved MS 19.06.07 25.04.07 0634_GAD_440004

AREA LEVEL TRADE PROJECT SITE ISSUER TYPE SEQUENCE No. REV EXT SL A3 DLAEP L L V 4 4 0 0 0 5 C This page is intentionally left blank

Page 30 Page 31 Page

Station Parade

E Apartment Entrance A Entrance Apartment A B Library Entrance Library Retail Entrance Retail

t o

l i b r a r y Stair 1 Lift Lift A Stair 1 Entrance A

Apartment

Security o

k D

Book Shelf e p

Informal reading Waiting area / - Magazines

i t

Book Shelf

L n

i 1

b t

1 e

Book Shelf r

r a

e r

s o

media media library & magazine /area /newspaper One Stop Shop lounge waiting f

l Informal reading Waiting area / - Magazines

Overhang to library to Overhang 1

0 Riser Service l

l Apartment A Block Refuse StoreRefuse

ICT 1

M /

p i

l o C

i 1

Cafe KioskCafe BookShelf

1 1 0 0 l open counter points 14 - One Stop Shop Stair 2Stair

h C e ICT Lounge Coffee & Corner l f FE return machine book Computerised Enclosed area counter entranceto 1100 high Lineof VOID Seating Block A Block Managers OfficeManagers General Office Fire Fire Escape Stair Stair 8Stair Retail Unit Apartment Entrance B

Lift B Book Shelf Stair 3Stair Cash Desks Automated Teen ICT with Library

post boxes 1100l

Apartment Entrance B area Homework with ICTwith Library Childrens 1100l Hedgeman's Road Hedgeman's

B 1100l 1100l 1100l 1100l 1100l o BookShelf

l f Lift

WC/ Baby changingWC/ Baby

i n

i l i n g WC FE

a Staff Relaxation Room

w Interview Rm 3 Interview Rm 2 Interview Rm 1 Interview Rm

t Accessible WC Accessible WC Accessible

u FE

e Secure StaffSecure Deliveries 1100l Entrance See drawing drawing 0634_GAD_420002 See See drawing drawing 0634_GAD_420002 See Bin StorageBin Stair 9Stair 1100l StaffChange WC & StaffChange WC & LV Switch LV RoomSwitch (female) (male) Accessible Accessible WC WC

600 x 6 bikes 6

400 riser Service Block B Block 6 bikes 6 Service trench 6 bikes 6 20.7 Suhr osn einRve E Southern Housing Design Review 12.06.07 90.7 Pann eiw F Planning Review 19.06.07 50.7 Suhr osn einRve C Southern Housing Design Review 15.05.07 B Southern Design Review Housing 27.04.07 60.7 LBBDD Design Review 06.06.07 Notes do not scale.©architecture Key Plan Icon 50.7 LB einRve A LBBD Design Review 25.04.07 Room Flue Plant Approved Checked DrawnBy Designed REV 50.7LB einRve LM MS MS AL MS MS AL LBBD DesignReview Southern HousingDesign Review 27.04.07 B 25.04.07 A 50.7LB einRve LM MS MS AL LBBD DesignReview 15.05.07 C 60.7LB einRve LM MS MS AL LBBD DesignReview 06.06.07 D 90.7Pann eiwA SMS MS AL MS MS AL PlanningReview LBBD DesignReview 19.06.07 F 12.06.07 E L D 3 A D N G B I L N Sheet1 of 2 Planning Drawing BlockA,+00 0634 LibraryDagenham Ground Floor Ground PlanFloor LONDON, SE1 LONDON,7NQ SE1 Tel. 020 7401 0020 AREA Elizabeth HouseElizabeth 39, 39, York Road UK BOUYGUES DATE For Comment Name MS MS AL AL For Comment Retail unit added access Areas removed Bin store amended Entrance lobby added For Comment For Comment Secure Staff Entrance Amended Library Support column moved For Comment LEVEL Service Service risers 400 x 600 0 Signature REVISIONHISTORY B A 400 x 500 TRADE m2 m4m 3m 2m 1m 19.06.07 19.06.07 28.03.07 28.03.07 Residential plb PROJECTSITE Date Room Meter 25.04.07 1:100 DATE1st ISSUE SCALE +FORMAT A ISSUER P L @ A1 TYPE G Plant Room A FILENAME STATUS 0634_GAD_420001 PLANNING 4 E F T Hampshire SO23 9HD SO23 Hampshire Winchester Street Thomas St [email protected] 840962 01962 842200 01962 2 SEQUENCENo. 0 0 Residential 5m LV Switch Drn 0 Room Chk 1 REV App F

600 x 400 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 32 do not scale. © architecture plb

Notes 25.04.07 LBBD Design Review A For Comment

27.04.07 Southern Housing Design Review B For Comment

15.05.07 Southern Housing Design Review C See drawing 0634_GAD_420001 For Comment Ground Floor layout amended Entrance lobby added Bin store and switch room amended Areas removed 06.06.07 LBBD Design Review D For Comment Block B Layout Amended 12.06.07 Southern Housing Design Review E For Comment 19.06.07 Planning Review F E D

Stair 9

lf Book She

Key

Service risers

Childrens Library External walled garden / Sculpture with ICT Court

Book Shelf

Bin Storage

1100l 1100l Page 33 Homework area

FE Deliveries B

Lift LV Switch Room Staff Relaxation Room Teen Library with ICT

1 Disabled 1 Disabled parking bay parking bay

Accessible WC Service Plant riser Service trench Room Flue

WC/ Baby changingWC Staff Change & WC Accessible WC (male) utomated ash Desks N 0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m 600 x Wheelchair transfer 500 x Wheelchair transfer 500 x 400 and storage space 400 and storage space 400 600x 400 600x 400 600x 400 Stair 5 Shower Tray Shower Tray 1100l 1100l Accessible 1100l 1100l

L WC i n e o Interview Rm 1 1 2 Plan Icon f cooker cooker d r Apartment Block B o Plant Room 1500 x 1500 1500 x 1500 r 3 p p Refuse and Recycling Store e 500 x washing washing d 1100l machine machine

400 1100l

c 600x 400 under 600x 400 under e i l 1100l 1100l 1100l i n g 1200 turning circle 1200 turning circle chestof drawers chestof drawers

Apartment Entrance C tbl tbl Accessible 1800 x 1500 1800 x 1500 1100l 1200 x 1200 1200 x 1200

WC hob hob 6 bikes

double bed double fridge bed double fridge Interview Rm 2 freezer freezer A Bike Store 1100l ent Entrance B 6 bikes 6 bikes 6 bikes tbl tbl AB

1100l Staff Change & WC Residential Residential (female) Meter LV Switch 6 bikes 6 bikes Lift C 2000x 2500 2000x 2500 1200 x 1200 1200 x 1200 Room Room double wardrobe double wardrobe coffeetable coffeetable 500 x

Interview Rm 3 seat2 settee seat2 settee t.v. t.v. 1100l 400 post box A 25.04.07 LBBD Design Review AL MS MS Secure Staff B 27.04.07 Southern Housing Design Review AL MS MS post boxes Entrance C 15.05.07 LBBD Design Review AL MS MS D 06.06.07 LBBD Design Review AL MS MS E 12.06.07 LBBD Design Review AL MS MS F 19.06.07 Planning Review AL MS MS

REV DATE REVISION HISTORY Drn Chk App D BOUYGUES UK

Elizabeth House 39, York Road LONDON, SE1 7NQ Tel. 020 7401 0020

St Thomas Street Winchester Hampshire SO23 9HD T 01962 842200 Dagenham Library F 01962 840962 E [email protected] See drawing 0634_GAD_420001 0634

Ground Floor Plan

ApartmentEntrance C Block B, +00 Planning Drawing Sheet 2 of 2 Hedgeman's Road

Name Signature Date SCALE + FORMAT STATUS Block A Block B Designed AL 28.03.07 1:100 @A1 PLANNING Drawn By AL 28.03.07 DATE 1st ISSUE FILE NAME Checked MS 19.06.07 Approved MS 19.06.07 25.04.07 0634_GAD_420001

AREA LEVEL TRADE PROJECT SITE ISSUER TYPE SEQUENCE No. REV RESGND A3 DLA P L G A 4 2 0 0 0 2 F This page is intentionally left blank

Page 34 AGENDA ITEM 5

Plan: B DC/07/00727/FUL Ward: Whalebone

Address: 61 Grosvenor Road Dagenham RM8 1NJ

Development: Conversion of dwelling into 2 no. one-bedroom flats

Applicant: Mr S S Dhindsa

Summary: The principle of a flat conversion is acceptable in this location. However, the proposal fails to provide adequate habitable floor area and is not Lifetime Homes Standards compliant.

Recommendation(s)

The Development Control Board is requested to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed ground floor unit does not provide sufficient internal habitable floorspace and both units are poorly stacked, and as such would result in sub-standard units of accommodation, detrimental to the living standards enjoyed by any existing or future occupiers of the flats, contrary to Policies H10 and H16 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (1995).

2. The proposed units do not satisfy the requirements of Lifetime Homes Standards and as such are not easily adaptable in order to meet any future changing needs of occupiers and as such is contrary to Policy T13 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (1995) and Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan (2004)

Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Charles Sweeny Senior Planning Officer Tel: 020 8227 3807 Fax: 020 8227 3916 E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction and Description of Development

1.1 The application site is an end terrace property located on the south western side of Grosvenor Road at the junction where Grosvenor Road meets Gray Avenue. The application proposes the conversion of the property to form 2 no. one bedroom flats.

2. Background

2.1 In 1978, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey side extension forming a garage and kitchen (Ref: DC/78/00096/TP).

3. Consultations

3.1 Neighbours/Publicity

3.1.1 The surrounding neighbouring properties have been consulted and two letters of representation were received, one letter from two occupiers, objecting on the

Page 35 grounds that the granting of planning permission would set a precedent for the area, and concerns regarding noise from living accommodation on the first floor.

3.1.2 In respect of these concerns, each planning application must be assessed on its individual merits. The application would not set a precedent for conversions in the area. As detailed further below, the Council has policies which limit the amount of flat conversions within a street. Concerns regarding noise emanating from the living accommodation on the first floor can be overcome by an appropriate stacking arrangement and/or noise insulation and sound proofing measures.

3.2 Traffic and Road Safety

3.2.1 Verbally advise that the property is served by two single width drop kerbs to the front and one drop kerb to the rear. The front garden has been hard surfaced and can provide 2 off street car parking spaces. Additionally, there is a garage to the side that could provide an additional space, however, a 1.0 metre high boundary wall currently blocks the access to this drop kerb.

4. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and London Plan Policy

4.1 Policy H10 Conversions Policy H13 New Residential Development Policy H14 Environmental Requirements Policy H15 Residential Amenity Policy H16 Internal Design Policy H17 Car Parking Policy T13 Development Standards Appendix 4 Refuse Collection and Storage Standards Interim Parking Standards (January 2002)

4.2 Policy 3A.4 Housing Choice (February 2004)

Policy Issue – Habitable Floor Area, Stacking, Lifetime Homes

5. Analysis

5.1 The site is located on the south western side of Grosvenor Road at the junction where Grosvenor Road meets Gray Avenue. The application proposes the conversion of the property to form 2 no. one bedroom flats. The plans indicate that the main change to the external appearance of the property will be the removal of the existing front porch and its replacement with two external doors providing self contained access to each flat. At the rear of the property, a window will be replaced with two smaller windows at first floor level. No other external changes, extensions or alterations are required to facilitate the conversion.

5.2 Principle of Conversion

5.2.1 Policy H10 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) details the Council’s stance on conversions. The policy states that the number of conversions (into both flats and houses in multiple occupation) should not exceed 10% of the number in the road and no two adjacent properties should be converted

Page 36 apart from dwellings separated by a road. Grosvenor Road is a residential street comprising some 119 dwellings typified by predominantly terraced properties.

5.2.2 The Electoral Register and planning history for the area indicate that there are 3 existing flat conversions in Grosvenor Road, as a percentage this equates to some 2.5%. Including the application site would result in 4 conversions or some 3.4% of the street. Policy H10 additionally advises that no two adjacent properties shall be converted apart from dwellings separated by a road. No. 63 Grosvenor Road has not been converted and remains in use as a single family dwelling. No. 59 Grosvenor Road has been converted into 2 no. 2 bed flats (Ref: DC/04/01027/FUL) but is separated from the application site by Gray Avenue and so the principle of converting the application site into flats is considered acceptable.

5.2.3 Additionally, the plans indicate 2 bin stores located to the front of the application site. Given the nature and location of the proposal, it is considered that this would provide convenient and reasonable access to the area of storage, in line with other properties in Grosvenor Road. The specific details of the bin stores can be agreed by way of condition if the application is considered acceptable.

5.2.4 Policy H10 of the UDP also advises that conversions should meet the guidelines of Policy H15 on residential amenity and Policy H16 on internal design and habitable floor area as well as providing an appropriate level of off street car parking.

5.3 Private Amenity

5.3.1 Policy H15 of the UDP relates to private amenity space for dwellings. Essentially the policy states that one bed flats should provide 20 sq.m each of private amenity space. Therefore, the application should make provision for 40 sq.m. of private amenity space.

5.3.2 The application proposes private amenity space for the ground floor unit of some 62.7 sq.m. and 48.7 sq.m. for the first floor. The plans indicate a fence line down the middle of the property which would provide subdivision and privacy and that existing structures in the rear garden would be demolished. Access for the ground floor unit would be via patio doors from the living room and access from the first floor flat would be via a side door through the existing garage and store. The means of access for the first floor flat is somewhat unusual but is considered to be reasonable and convenient.

5.3.3 In light of the above, it is considered that the application provides adequate private amenity space in terms of quantity and usability and provides convenient access to this space for both the ground and first floor flats. The proposal is therefore considered to satisfy the requirements of Policy H15 of the UDP.

5.4 Internal Design and Habitable Floor Area

5.4.1 Policy H16 of the UDP relates to internal design and habitable floorspace of new development. Under Policy H16 requirements, a 1 bed flat should have a minimum total habitable floor area of 28.5 sq.m. Habitable floor area includes living rooms, bedrooms, dining rooms etc but excludes bathrooms, kitchens and hallways. Where kitchen diners are proposed, the Council must take a view as to what would

Page 37 be considered to form part of the kitchen. This element must therefore be excluded for habitable floor area calculations.

5.4.2 The ground floor 1 bed unit would provide 27.6 sq.m of habitable floor area and the first floor 1 bed flat would provide 28.5 sq.m of habitable floor area. The first floor unit therefore meets the requirements of Policy H16, however, the ground floor unit, does not provide sufficient habitable floor area.

5.4.3 There are also concerns regarding the stacking arrangement of the flats, the first floor living room is located directly over the ground floor bedroom and similarly, the first floor bedroom is directly over the ground floor living accommodation. In light of this, it is not considered that the dwelling provides an appropriate stacking arrangement, which would be detrimental to future occupiers. Additionally, the layout of the first floor bathroom in particular is unnecessarily awkward and the location of the first floor living room on the party wall with No. 63 Grosvenor Road would require sound insulation or preferably relocating.

5.4.4 Whilst there is a degree of flexibility within the policy to allow development that is marginally under standards in appropriate situations, it is clear that the ground floor flat is deficient in habitable floor area and both flats have a poor stacking arrangement. The application therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policy H16 of the UDP.

5.5 Lifetime Homes Standards

5.5.1 Policy T13 of the UDP and London Plan Policy 3A.4 on Housing Choice states that new developments should, inter alia, provide access for people with disabilities. In this respect the application proposes the conversion of the existing property into two flats and as such the proposal should comply with Lifetime Homes Standards (LTH). LTH seeks to ensure that new residential development is easily adaptable to provide accessible and convenient homes for those with physical or sensory impairments. Essentially, LTH requires new development to provide adequate door and hallway widths for ease of movement and access and adequate space to provide reasonable turning areas.

5.5.2 The main external door measures some 700 mm, the recognised LTH standard being some 800 mm. Internally, the proposal provides door entrances between 600 and 700 mm, the recognised LTH standard for a door entrance is 775 mm. Additionally, the proposal provides hallway widths of 800 mm. The recognised LTH standard for hallway widths is 900mm, or, where the approach is not head on, the width of the hallway should be 1050 mm. Internally, the swing of a number of doors overlaps one another further inhibiting movement and access.

5.5.3 In light of the above, it is considered that the application fails to comply with LTH standards, and is therefore contrary to Policy T13 of the UDP and Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan.

5.6 Car Parking

5.6.1 Guidance on car parking is set out in the Interim Parking Standards (January 2002) which advocates maximum parking standards. In this instance the standards seek a maximum of two car parking spaces, one space per unit.

Page 38

5.6.2 The application proposes 2 car parking spaces on an area of hard surface to the front of the property. Additionally, there is an existing garage to the side, however, the drop kerb serving this garage is blocked by a 1.0 metre high boundary wall. If part of this boundary wall were removed, then clearly, the garage space would be more usable. Alternatively, the adjacent drop kerb, serving the area of hard standing could be used in association with the garage, the proposal would then provide one space in the garage and one on the hard surfaced front garden. There is also a drop kerb to the very rear of the site, serving an old garage. However, the plans indicate this garage will be demolished to increase the level of private amenity space. Regardless of the specific format, the proposal can provide 2 off street car parking spaces.

5.6.3 As mentioned above, from the site visit it was apparent that the whole of the front garden has been hard surfaced. This is technically contrary to criterion (iii) of Policy H10 which states that a maximum of 50% of the front garden should be hard surfaced. However, given that this element already exists and does not in itself require planning permission, a refusal on these grounds alone would be extremely difficult to substantiate. Similarly, the level of car parking proposed is considered acceptable and useable. In light of this, it is considered that the proposed car parking scheme meets the requirements of Policy H10 and H17 of the UDP and the Interim Parking Standards (January 2002).

6.0 Background Papers

• Planning Application File

Page 39 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 40 Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 42 Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 44 AGENDA ITEM 6

Plan: C DC/07/00754/FUL Ward: Heath

Address: 14 Marston Avenue Dagenham RM10 7JX

Development: Erection of two storey side extension in connection with converting the property into 4 no. one-bedroom flats Applicant: Mr T Dormer

Summary: The principle of a flat conversion is acceptable in this location. However, the proposal is of a poor design, fails to provide adequate habitable floor area, is not Lifetime Homes Standards compliant, fails to provide an acceptable level of car parking or useable private amenity space and is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site.

Recommendation(s)

The Development Control Board is requested to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by reason of its design, would be a dominant and incongruous feature in the street scene, harmful to the visual amenities of the area and contrary to Policies H13, H22, DE1 and Appendix 7 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (1995).

2. The proposed units do not provide sufficient internal habitable floorspace or adequate stacking, and as such would result in sub-standard units of accommodation and an overdevelopment of the site, detrimental to the living standards enjoyed by any existing or future occupiers of the flats, contrary to Policies H10 and H16 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (1995).

3. The proposed units do not satisfy the requirements of Lifetime Homes Standards and as such are not easily adaptable in order to meet any future changing needs of occupiers and as such is contrary to Policy T13 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (1995) and Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan (2004)

4. The proposal fails to provide an adequate level of useable, private amenity space, detrimental to the amenities of future occupiers and harmful to the character of the surrounding area contrary to Policies H10 and H15 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (1995).

5. The proposed car parking scheme fails to provide adequate off street car parking spaces in an acceptable form and would result in an impractical layout which would cause unacceptable parking pressures on the highway contrary to Policy H10 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (1995) and the Interim Parking Standards (2002). Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Charles Sweeny Senior Planning Officer Tel: 020 8227 3807 Fax: 020 8227 3916 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 45 1. Introduction and Description of Development

1.1 The application site is a semi detached property located on the north eastern side of Marston Avenue near to the junction where Marston Avenue meets Naseby Road. The application proposes the erection of a two-storey side extension in connection with converting the property to form 4 no. one bedroom flats.

2. Background

2.1 The property has been extended in the form of a single storey garage extension to the side and lounge extension to the rear. Planning permissions were also granted in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s for two storey side extensions but these were not implemented and have now lapsed.

3. Consultations

3.1 Neighbours/Publicity

3.1.1 The surrounding neighbouring properties have been consulted and four letters of representation were received, along with a petition, objecting on the grounds that the proposed development will look out of character in the area, concerns over car parking, litter and devaluation in property prices.

3.1.2 In respect of the neighbour concerns, issues regarding design, car parking and bin storage will be dealt with below. The issue regarding devaluation in property prices is not a material planning consideration that the Council can give any weight to.

3.2 Traffic and Road Safety

3.2.1 The application property has an existing off street parking in the form of a hard stand driveway accessed by an existing vehicular crossover with a 3.6m dropped kerb. The kerb face was found to be about 10-20mm outside this property. Traffic volume was judged to be moderate. The existing Highway Geometry in the vicinity of the proposed vehicular crossing was observed to be satisfactory during the visit at this site.

3.2.2 Although there is enough room to park 4 cars as described in the application, this will mean that the kerb will need to be dropped for a length of about 10m, thereby causing concern for the safety of pedestrians and also the loss of on-street parking. I therefore find the proposal unacceptable on Highway grounds.

4. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and London Plan Policies

4.1 Policy H10 Conversions Policy H13 New Residential Development Policy H14 Environmental Requirements Policy H15 Residential Amenity Policy H16 Internal Design Policy H22 Extensions and Alterations Policy DE1 Urban Design Policy T13 Development Standards Appendix 4 Refuse Collection and Storage Standards

Page 46 Appendix 7 Guidelines for the Extension and Alteration of Dwellings Interim Parking Standards (January 2002)

4.2 Policy 3A.4 Housing Choice (February 2004)

Policy Issue – Amenity Space, Habitable Floor Area, Lifetime Homes, Design, Car Parking

5. Analysis

5.1 The application site is a semi detached property located on the north eastern side of Marston Avenue near to the junction where Marston Avenue meets Naseby Road. The application proposes the demolition of an existing single storey garage to the side and the erection of a two-storey side extension in connection with converting the property to form 4 no. one bedroom flats.

5.2 The proposed two storey side extension will measure 8.7 metres in length by 8.0 metres in height by 4.0 metres in width increasing to 5.6 metres at the rear as the extension follows the boundary line which tapers out to the rear. The two storey side extension would have a hip end roof to match that of the existing property.

5.3 Principle of Conversion

5.3.1 Policy H10 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) details the Council’s stance on conversions. The policy states that the number of conversions (into both flats and houses in multiple occupation) should not exceed 10% of the number of properties in the road and no two adjacent properties should be converted apart from dwellings separated by a road. Marston Avenue is a long stretch of road comprising some 241 predominantly terraced properties.

5.3.2 The Electoral Register and planning history for the area indicate that there are 2 existing flat conversions in Marston Avenue. Including the application site would result in 3 conversions or some 1.2% of the street. Policy H10 additionally advises that no two adjacent properties shall be converted apart from dwellings separated by a road. In this respect, the adjacent properties are No. 16 Marston Avenue and No. 1 Naseby Road. Both of these properties remain in occupation as single family dwellings and so the principle of converting the application site into flats is considered acceptable.

5.3.3 Given the nature and location of the proposal, it is further considered that adequate bin storage would be achieved, in line with the other properties in Marston Avenue, with storage located to the front of the property which would provide convenient access for collection. Whilst no details have been provided in respect of this, an appropriate condition could be attached to the planning permission if the application is considered acceptable.

5.3.4 Policy H10 of the UDP also advises that proposed conversions should meet private amenity standards, internal design standards and car parking.

5.4 Residential Amenity

Page 47 5.4.1 Policy H15 of the UDP relates to private amenity space for dwellings. A 1 bed flat should have a minimum private amenity space of 20 sq.m. The application proposes four 1 bed units and should therefore make provision for 80 sq.m. of private amenity space. The application proposes 160 sq.m. of private amenity space. However, no delineation of the space is indicated. It is therefore assumed that this area would be used communally.

5.4.2 Clearly, in terms of pure quantity, the level of amenity space provision is in excess of the Council’s standards. Access to the amenity space for one of the ground floor units would be via a rear door out of the living room/conservatory which would provide convenient access. Similarly, the other ground floor unit would have a side entrance door leading to the amenity space. The occupants of the first floor flats would leave the communal front door and walk round the side of the property. It is broadly considered that the access arrangements for the four flats would be acceptable.

5.4.3 However, there are concerns that there is no division of amenity space or sense of ownership of this communal area. It is considered appropriate that the proposal should provide a reasonable area of private, useable amenity space for all occupants. If the communal gardens were used in the way suggested, the occupants of the first floor flats would walk directly past the front door and bedroom window of one of the ground floor flats to the amenity area at the rear, where they would have direct views into the conservatory addition of the other ground floor unit. This arrangement is wholly unacceptable.

5.4.4 The proposal does not provide an adequate level of private amenity space and is therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policies H10 (vi) and H15 of the UDP.

5.5 Internal Design

5.5.1 Policy H16 of the UDP relates to internal design and habitable floorspace of new development. Under Policy H16 requirements, a 1 bed flat should have a minimum total habitable floor area of 28.5 sq.m. Habitable floor area includes living rooms, bedrooms, dining rooms etc but excludes bathrooms, kitchens and hallways. Where kitchen diners are proposed, the Council must take a view as to what would be considered to form part of the kitchen. This element must therefore be excluded for habitable floor area calculations.

5.5.2 The proposed 1 bed ground floor flats would provide 35.4 sq.m, 23.5 sq.m., 23.6 sq.m. and 21.6 sq.m respectively of habitable floor area. Clearly, only one of the flats is in excess of the requirements of Policy H16 of the UDP and three are substantially substandard. Additionally, in terms of stacking, one of the first floor units would have a living room directly located over a ground floor bedroom and vice versa which is an unnecessarily poor arrangement.

5.5.3 Whilst there is a degree of flexibility within the policy to allow development that is marginally under standards in appropriate situations, it is clear that three of the flats are significantly substandard. The provision of kitchen diners further hazes the distinction between what areas are habitable and not.

5.5.4 The application does not provide habitable floor area to an acceptable standard coupled with a poor stacking arrangement. No justification has been identified for

Page 48 accepting habitable floor space that is below standards for a new build development and so the application fails to meet the requirements of Policies H10 (iv), H16 of the UDP by providing a substandard level of accommodation.

5.6 Lifetime Homes Standards

5.6.1 Policy T13 of the UDP and London Plan Policy 3A.4 on Housing Choice states that new developments should, inter alia, provide access for people with disabilities. In this respect the application should comply with Lifetime Homes Standards (LTH). LTH seeks to ensure that new residential development is easily adaptable to provide accessible and convenient homes for those with physical or sensory impairments. Essentially, LTH requires new development to provide adequate door and hallway widths for ease of movement and access and adequate space to provide reasonable turning areas.

5.6.2 The main external door measures some 950 mm, the recognised LTH standard being some 800 mm. Internally, the proposal provides door entrances of 700 mm, the recognised LTH standard for a door entrance is 775 mm. Additionally, the proposal provides hallway widths of 800 mm. The recognised LTH standard for hallway widths is 900mm, or, where the approach is not head on, the width of the hallway should be 1050 mm. An external door is also proposed on the flank wall, which has a width of some 700 mm. It is not clear whether this door forms the main entrance to the flat or via the communal front door. However, the width of the door and the 750 mm gap alongside the flank wall of the proposed side extension does not satisfy LTH standards. Furthermore, internally, the swing of a number of doors overlaps further inhibiting movement and access.

5.6.3 In light of the above, it is considered that the application fails to comply with LTH standards, and is therefore contrary to Policy T13 of the UDP and Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan.

5.7 Design

5.7.1 Policy H13 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) details the Council’s stance on new residential development. Policy H13 states, inter alia, that new residential development should respect the height, scale, massing, size, density, materials, form and design of existing buildings and reflect the spaces around them. Similarly Policy DE1 of the UDP states that the design of new buildings should sympathetically relate to one another in order to contribute positively to the relationship between spaces and buildings. Additionally, guidance contained within Policy H22 and Appendix 7 on extensions and alterations to dwellings is also of relevance.

5.7.2 In terms of side extensions, Appendix 7 states that the flank walls of side extensions should not contain any windows to habitable rooms and that the first floor of two storey side extensions should normally either be set in at least 1.0 metre from the side boundary or set back 2.0 metres from the main front wall of the property to break the bulk of the extension, to prevent a terracing effect and provide an appropriate setting. Appendix 7 also states two storey side extensions should be sympathetic in their design, detail and materials.

Page 49 5.7.3 The plans indicate the proposed two storey side extension has been set in some 750 mm from the side boundary. The side extension increases in width at the rear as the extension follows the boundary line which tapers at the rear. The set in distance from the side boundary is below the 1.0 metre set out in Appendix 7 of the UDP. The policy also discusses the need for extensions to be sympathetic and relate well to the existing environment. The side extension would have an identical ridge height to the existing property, and in terms of detail, the extension includes two windows in the rear elevation at both ground and first floor level, a side entrance door and two storey bay windows with gable feature which offers the appearance of the extension continue the existing building line.

5.7.4 The side extension has been designed with a hip end roof to replicate that of the original dwelling. However, due to extension following the line of the side boundary which tapers out at the rear, the proposal results in an uneven appearance beyond what a conventional hip end extension should provide. The application is located in a highly prominent position along Marston Avenue and the extension would have visibility from a number of vantage points. The proposal does not sympathetically blend with the host dwelling and offers an awkward appearance, in the main part due to the extension following the boundary line rather than terminating in a vertical line at the rear. The extension would appear unduly conspicuous and incongruous in the street scene and is therefore considered contrary to Policies H13, H22, DE1 and Appendix 7 of the UDP.

5.8 Car Parking

5.8.1 Guidance on car parking is set out in the Interim Parking Standards (January 2002) which advocates maximum parking standards. In this instance the standards seek a maximum of 1 car parking space per flat. The application proposes 4 car parking spaces, 1 space for each flat, located on an area of hard surfacing to the front of the application site. The plans indicate the width of each space would be only 2.0 metres which is insufficient to adequately park a car. However, the Traffic and Road Safety Team have advised that there is sufficient space in the front garden to accommodate four cars.

5.8.2 From the site visit, it was apparent that the whole of the front garden has been hard surfaced. This is technically contrary to criterion (iii) of Policy H10 which states that a maximum of 50% of the front garden should be hard surfaced. However, given that this element already exists and does not in itself require planning permission, a refusal on these grounds alone would be extremely difficult to substantiate. The Traffic and Road Safety Team have advised however, that a quadruple width drop kerb of some 10 metres is unacceptable and will not be permitted, therefore the proposed car parking scheme cannot physically be implemented.

5.8.3 It is noted that government guidance contained within PPG13 seeks a more relaxed attitude to car parking standards in appropriate circumstances, for example, in areas close to strong public transport links. The application site does not benefit from this and is not within 400 metres of an identified railway station as outlined in the Interim Parking Standards.

5.8.4 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed car parking scheme is unacceptable and therefore the application fails to meet the requirements of Policy H10 (ii), H17 and the Interim Parking Standards.

Page 50

6.0 Background Papers

• Planning Application File

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 Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 58 AGENDA ITEM 7

Plan: D DC/07/00766/FUL Ward: Chadwell Heath

Address: 4 Tolworth Parade, East Road, Chadwell Heath.

Development: Variation of condition 3 of Inspectorate appeal decision APP/Z5060/A/06/209755 to allow extended hours to 10.00pm 7 days a week for the preparation of food (shop closed) and 10am to 4pm on Sunday for the sale of hot food. Applicant: Samosa King Catering

Summary:

The application premises comprises a ground floor shop with flat located above in a parade of 9 shops situated on the western side of East Road, between Tolworth Gardens and Portland Gardens. Planning permission was gained at appeal for a change of use from A1 to A5 (hot food takeaway) and catering, following a refusal of planning consent at the Development Control Board. The Inspector’s appeal decision specified times for both food preparation and opening and closing (between the hours of 07:00 and 19:00 Mondays to Saturdays). The present application seeks planning permission to vary the relevant hours allowing extended hours every day for food preparation and to sell hot food over the counter on Sundays.

Recommendation(s)

The Development Control Board is asked to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

1. The proposed variation would result in an intensification of the use of these premises, greater vehicular movement and increased litter, noise and disturbance to the detriment of local amenity and the character of this local shopping parade, contrary to Policies S8 and G32 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Daniel Nelson Senior Planning Officer Tel: 020 8227 3710 Fax: 020 8227 3910 E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction and Description of Development

1.2 The application premises comprises a ground floor shop with flat located above in a parade of 9 shops situated on the western side of East Road, between Tolworth Gardens and Portland Gardens. The existing use has permission to operate between the hours of 07:00 and 19:00 Mondays to Saturdays This application seeks to vary the relevant condition to allow extended hours to 10.00 pm 7 days a week for the preparation of food (shop closed) and 10am to 4pm on Sunday for the sale of hot food. Most of the shops in the parade open until between 5 and 6 pm

Page 59 weekdays. Two shops open later; the off licence varies between 10 and 10.30 pm and the essential oils shop opens until 9 pm on limited days of the week.

2 Background

2.1 Application 00/00114/FUL for a change of use of ground floor shop to Class A3 (food and drink) was withdrawn by the applicant in 2000. This application had generated a petition of 600 objectors prior to withdrawal.

2.2. Application 06/00641/FUL for a change of use to hot food takeaway (A5) and extract ducting was refused permission at the Board held on 3 October 2006. The applicant subsequently appealed to the planning inspectorate. The inspectorate overturned the refusal by allowing the appeal subject to the condition above.

3. Consultations

3.1 a) Adjoining Occupiers

The occupiers of 73 nearby residential properties were consulted on this application;

21 letters have been received as well as a petition from 14 properties who object to this application, their concerns can be summarised as;

That the shop is already working these hours without permission and that if they were allowed extended hours they would work beyond the new hours; that smells are already causing nuisance and that this would be worse; that there are already too many take away shops; that parking and litter problems would become even worse; that anti social behaviour and crime would increase due to greater numbers of undesirables being attracted; the applicants are adopting an incremental approach to extending their opening hours and this will eventually result in full blown takeaway services operating 20 hours a day; if extended opening hours were approved then the other shops could follow suit.

Reference was also made by the objectors to the original petition against the A3 use. It was intimated that most residents who signed this still objected to the current application.

A petition, signed by 301 people has also been received from the applicant supporting his application, it should be noted that a large proportion of the people who signed live outside the Borough or have indicated Royal Mail as their address. As this appears to be the workplace of one of the applicants the value of this support must be questioned.

4. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy

4.1 S.8 Food and Drink Uses G. 32 Litter and Flytipping

Policy issue: noise, smell, activity nuisance.

5. Analysis

Page 60

5.1 In the Inspector’s appeal decision of 13 Feb 2007, the inspector stated that he did not “consider a decision relating to deliveries or food preparation activities is necessary as the times of any activities associated with the operation are adequately controlled through the condition relating to the hours of use of the site”. In effect, the times of opening and food preparation are tied together and any extension of these hours would be contrary to the inspector’s appeal decision which was made following an assessment of the development against national, regional and local policy.

5.2 In addition, this appeal decision has effectively inferred that any extension beyond the hours set would cause unacceptable noise and nuisance. He also ‘tied’ together the takeaway use and food preparation hours of operation. As such, allowing a separation between these two activities would not accord with the Inspector’s appeal decision. The inspector concluded that, although there is a variation in opening hours amongst the units on this shopping parade, it would be necessary to impose a closing time of 7pm for this unit (earlier than either the off licence or essential oils shop). Although the applicant’s agent, in his supporting statement argues that an extension of this time will not cause harm, it must be considered that the upper floor flats above and alongside the unit would suffer a greater degree of harm resulting from movements associated with the use than would have been the case otherwise. Any additional harm suffered will be beyond the Inspector’s consideration of what was an acceptable degree of noise and disturbance and/or odour nuisance. It should be noted that the entrance to the first floor flat above the premises is located at ground floor level immediately adjacent to the rear of 4 Tolworth Parade.

5.3 The emphasis upon food preparation by the applicant for off site sales, as he has acknowledged in his original application and is intimated in this application, would mean that this application if approved would result in a unit selling food but with a greater emphasis on food distribution than is normal for an A5 use. This would have policy implications and would potentially lead to increased vehicular movements, noise and disturbance which would result in a detrimental amenity impact to nearby residential flats and the area in general. It should also be noted that the hours of use conditioned by the Inspector on appeal were suggested by the applicants in their original submission to overcome the objections by residents.

5.4 It should be noted that there are several other issues outstanding on this site;

• The applicants have been using the premises for food preparation outside of the hours set by the previously mentioned appeal decision, although the applicants might argue that the present application would regularise their present working hours

• There is an unauthorised container in the rear yard that requires planning permission. No permission has yet been applied for.

5.5 Both the planning enforcement and environmental health sections are currently undertaking action to rectify these breaches.

In conclusion, any extension of opening hours for food preparation or the sale of hot food would be contrary to the Planning Inspectorate’s appeal decision and UDP

Page 61 policy and would likely result in increased levels of vehicular movements, noise and disturbance.

Background Papers

• Planning Application File

Page 62 Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 64 AGENDA ITEM 8

Plan: E DC/07/00662/FUL Ward: Heath

Address: 23 Marston Avenue, Dagenham, RM010 7JX

Development: Erection of single storey rear and two storey side extensions to form a three bedroom end of terrace house Applicant: Mr T Dormer

Summary:

The proposed dwelling would appear unduly cramped and intrusive in a prominent corner position and thereby detract from the character and appearance of the street.

Recommendation(s)

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by reason of its siting and location, would result in a cramped and intrusive addition to the street scene, harmful to the character of the area and visual amenities of the existing residential occupiers, contrary to Policy H13 and DE1 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (1995).

Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Louise Thayre Planning Officer Tel: 020 8227 3919 Fax: 020 8227 3916 E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction and Description of Development

1.1 The application site is a two storey semi detached single family dwelling located on a corner plot on the western side of Marston Avenue at its junction with Edgehill Gardens. The surrounding area comprises a mixture of terraced and semi detached residential properties. Commercial properties are located directly to the south of the site at the junction with Oxlow Lane. The site contains a side garden that once formed a public verge, which now forms part of the property’s curtilage. The property has extended in the form of a front porch and several small outbuildings located in the rear garden.

1.2 The application relates to the erection of single storey rear and two storey side extensions to form a three bedroom end of terrace house on land adjacent 23 Marston Avenue. The proposed development seeks to create a living room, kitchen and dining room on the ground floor and three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor.

1.3 The proposed dwelling will measure 4.95 metres in width, 10.15 metres in length and will have a height of 8.05 metres. The dwelling would appear as an extension to

Page 65 a pair of semis with finishing materials and a hipped-end roof to match the donor property.

2. Background

2.1 The property has extended in the form of a front porch and several small outbuildings located in the rear garden

3. Consultations

3.1 a) Neighbouring properties were consulted and as a result of consultation process 5 letters of objection and a petition containing 22 signatures were received objecting on the following:

- Loss of light - Parking - Out of place

b) Road and Traffic Safety Group: No comments received

4. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy

4.1 Policy H14 Environmental Requirements Policy H15 Residential Amenity Policy H16 Internal Design Policy H17 Car Parking Policy DE1 Urban Design Policy T13 Development Standards Appendix 6 Car Parking Standards Interim Parking Standards (January 2002)

Policy Issue: cramped, overdevelopment

5. Analysis

5.1 Design : Policies H13 and DE1, states that all new residential development shall be of high quality design and layout, sympathetically relate to the existing environment and contribute positively to the relationship between spaces and buildings.

Although the development does match in terms of height, proportion, design and scale the host dwelling, it is considered that due to its siting and location and its close proximity to the side boundary, the development as a whole would relate poorly to the street scene and in particular to the adjacent cul-de-sac and would therefore have a negative impact on the existing environment.

The proposed dwelling would project forward of the building line of the properties located within the cul-de-sac and as such would obstruct the view into the cul-de- sac and create an increased sense of enclosure at the mouth of the Edgehill Gardens. The proposed dwelling therefore does not positively respect the relationship between the spaces and buildings within the vicinity and as such would be contrary to Policies DE1 and H13 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

Page 66

5.2 Residential Amenity : Policy H15 requires that adequate amenity space is provided for new residential developments. In calculating private amenity space the policy clearly states that only private usable space should be considered and that unreasonable narrow strips of land will not count towards this standard. The amenity space required for both the proposed dwelling and number 23 Marston Avenue is 60 square metres. The plans indicate that the donor property (no. 23 Marston Avenue) will have some 69 square metres of private amenity space and the new dwelling will have approximately 67 square metres, both properties are above the minimum requirement under policy H15.

5.3 Internal design : Policy H16 seeks to ensure that a three bedroom house has a minimum total habitable floor area of no less than 49 square metres. Habitable floor area includes living rooms, bedrooms, dining rooms etc but excludes bathrooms, kitchens and hallways. The plans indicate that the proposed dwelling will have 64 squares metres of habitable floor space, well above the minimum required under policy. The new dwelling has a good layout, although the plans indicate no downstairs toilet, which would be a requirement under building regulations and Lifetime Homes requirements. However if require this could be provided without compromising the floorspace requirement and will not be used as an additional reason for refusal.

5.4 Parking : Guidance on car parking provision is set out in the Interim Parking Standards (January 2002) which advocates maximum parking standards. In this instance the standards seek a maximum of 1.5 car parking space for a three bedroom dwelling. The plans have not provided any details off the car parking arrangements; however the supporting documents indicate that the intention is to provide two off street parking spaces at the front of the property. There is sufficient space at the front of the donor property to provide 1 off street parking space. However, due to the application site’s shape and close proximity to the junction with Edgehill Gardens therefore is insufficient depth to park at the front of the proposed dwelling. The neighbouring properties do have forecourt parking and there appears to be no restrictions for on street parking in Marston Avenue. It is not considered therefore that the proposal will have any appreciable impact on traffic congestion.

5.5 Extensions and Alterations : Appendix 7 for the Guidelines for the Extension and Alteration to Dwellings stipulates that rear extensions should not normally exceed a maximum depth of 3.65m measured from the rear wall of the house. It goes on to state that "two storey extensions would only be approved where the projection of the extension is no greater than the distance between the extension and the nearest corner of the adjoining buildings". Essentially, this means that any extension should not infringe a 45º angle taken from the nearest corner point of the neighbouring properties.

The single storey rear extension will measure 2.8 metres in depth, 5 metres in width and will have a height of 2.8 metres with a flat roof. The two storey extension to form the proposed dwelling is dependant on the single storey rear extension, as the new dwelling extends beyond the original main rear wall of the donor property. Number 23 Marston Avenue is the only property affected by the two storey extension. A 45º angle has been taken, as detailed above, and the extension does not infringe this line in any way.

Page 67 A neighbouring property has commented on the loss of light due to the single storey rear extension. Due to the orientation of the properties it is considered that the proposed extension will not result in a significant loss of light. The single storey rear extension is actually below the cubic volume allowed under permitted development and in itself does not require planning permission.

6. Conclusion : In conclusion, the proposed dwelling would appear unduly cramped and intrusive in a prominent corner position and thereby detract from the character and appearance of the street.

Page 68 Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 70 Page 71 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 72 Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 74 AGENDA ITEM 9

Plan: F DC/07/00769/FUL Ward: Thames

Address: 84c Westminster Gardens, Barking, IG11 0BL

Development: Erection of a three-bedroom end of terrace house

Applicant: Mr J Avers

Summary:

It is considered that the proposed dwelling will result in an unacceptable form of development detrimental to the existing environment and as such should be recommended for refusal.

Recommendation(s)

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed development would by reason of its design and appearance be visually obtrusive and out of keeping with the surrounding area to the detriment of the residential and visual amenities of the surrounding and future occupiers of the site, contrary to policy H13, and DE1 of the Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995).

Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Louise Thayre Planning Officer Tel: 020 8227 3919 Fax: 020 8227 3916 E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction and Description of Development

1.1 The application site comprises a two storey end-of-terraced dwelling house in the south western corner of Westminster Gardens. The dwelling is part of a terrace of three houses which are at an angle and set back from the adjoining residences. The area is characterized by a predominance of two storey terrace properties.

1.2 The property has previously extended in the form of a single storey rear extension approximately 2.8 metres in depth.

1.3 The application relates to the erection of a three bedroom end of terrace house on land adjacent 84c Westminster Gardens. The proposed dwelling will have a maximum width of 6.95 metres, a length of 11.55 metres and will have a height of 9.2 metres. Internally, the development seeks to create a living room/dining room, kitchen and shower room on the ground floor and three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor.

Page 75 2. Background

2.1 DC/02/00539/FUL – Erection of a two storey side extension and conversion of the property into four flats – Refused DC/03/00032/FUL – Erection of a single storey side and rear extension and a first floor extension to convert into 3 one bedroom flats – Refused DC/03/00528/FUL – Erection of a two storey side and rear extension to provide 3 one bedroom self contained flats – Refused DC/04/00001/REFUSAL – Appeal against refusal – Dismissed DC/05/01030/FUL – Erection of a two storey side extension – Approved

There have been a number of previous planning applications relating to the subject site involving conversion of the property into flats. These have all been refused including an appeal which was dismissed on the basis that its size, siting and design would cause a detrimental intrusion into the street scene. Planning permission was recently granted in 2006 for a two storey side extension.

3. Consultations

3.1 a) Neighbours: In response to the public consultation exercise one letter of objection and a 7 signature petition were received. Objections were raised in respect to off-street parking; overdevelopment of the site and noise.

3.2 b) Road and Traffic Safety Group: No comments received

4. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy

Policy Issue: Design, Parking,

5. Analysis

5.1 Policies H13 and DE1, states that all new residential development shall be of high quality design and layout, sympathetically relate to the existing environment and contribute positively to the relationship between spaces and buildings. The surrounding area is mainly consists of two storey terrace housing, all similar is height, scale, size, materials and design.

The application site has an unusual triangular shaped curtilage with a narrow frontage of 4.2 metres facing on to Westminster Gardens increasing to 26.2 metres at the rear. The proposed dwelling will have a maximum width of 6.95 metres, 9.2 metres in height and 11.55 metres in depth. The depth of the dwelling would replicate that of the extended adjacent property at No. 84c Westminster Gardens.

Page 76 The proposed development has been designed to incorporate a two storey projection similar to a triangular bay window to provide windows/light to the upstairs bedroom and additional space within the new dwelling without resulting in overlooking to the adjoining property. The property when viewed from the front will give the impression of a staggered appearance. The element is considered to be unnecessarily fussy and poor design.

The shape of the plot and the orientation of the neighbouring property number 86 Westminster Gardens means that the proposed dwelling when viewed from certain view points would be partially hidden behind number 86 Westminster Gardens. The windows on the front elevation would virtually be looking out onto the flank wall of the number 86 Westminster Gardens.

The proposal will also close the gap between the proposed dwelling and the adjacent property number 86 Westminster Gardens The plans indicate that there will be a 1 metre gap between the proposed extension and the side boundary, again however, from certain viewpoints the two terraces would appear to the joined with no distinctive gap. The property does have planning permission for a two storey side extension, however, the previous application proposed an extension of approximately 3 metres in width leaving a greater distance between the extension and the side boundary (approximately 2.2 metres).

In 2003 planning permission was refused for an extension and conversion in the 3 one bedroom flats. An appeal against this decision was dismissed in April 2004 with the Inspector making reference to the appeal site as representing one of the larger spaces in the street, providing a relief from the strong sense of enclosure in the street scene. The Inspector goes on the state that that ‘the proposal would result in the effect loss of one of the few significant gaps between buildings in the street to the detriment of to its appearance and character’. It is considered that similar circumstances apply in this case.

The proposed development is considered to be over development of a tight corner plot and therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policy DE1 and H13 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan

5.2 Policy H15 (residential amenity) requires that adequate amenity space is provided for new residential developments. In calculating private amenity space the policy clearly states that only private usable space should be considered and that unreasonable narrow strips of land will not count towards this standard. The amenity space required for both the proposed dwelling and number 84c Westminster Gardens is 60 square metres. The plans indicate that both the donor property and the proposed dwelling will have in excess of the minimum required under policy H15.

5.3 Policy H16 (internal design) seeks to ensure that a three-bedroom house has a minimum total habitable floor area of no less than 49 square metres. Habitable floor area includes living rooms, bedrooms, dining rooms etc but excludes bathrooms, kitchens and hallways.The plans show that the proposed dwelling will provide 55 square metres of habitable floor space, which is well above the minimum standard set out in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. The scheme is also considered capable of meeting Lifetime Home Standards as outlined by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation study.

Page 77

5.4 Guidance on car parking provision is set out in the Interim Parking Standards (January 2002) which advocates maximum parking standards. In this instance the standards seek a maximum of 1.5 car parking space for a three bedroom dwelling. The plans indicate that both the donor property and proposed new dwelling will have off street parking spaces at the front of the property. However, there is a concern regarding the practicalities of the proposal. For instance, the parking space for the proposed dwelling is located close to the side boundary, which would cause problems for passenger on the left hand side leaving the vehicle. The access to the site is also narrow and could result in vehicles being blocked by one another.

5.5 Appendix 7 of the Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) outlines Council policy on extensions and alterations of dwellings. Whilst it is accepted that the proposal is for a new end terrace property, it is considered that the guidelines for side extensions are of relevance. In this respect, Appendix 7 states that side extensions should either be set in off the boundary or set back at first floor level. As mentioned above, the dwelling has been sited some 1.0 metres in from the boundary which is in accordance with Appendix 7 guidelines. However due to the siting of the property a 45 degree angle need to be taken to ensure the proposed dwelling does not affect the neighbouring property number 86 Westminster Gardens in terms of loss of light or visual impact. A 45º angle taken from the nearest corner of number 86 Westminster Gardens indicates that the proposed extension does marginally breach this line. However due to the orientation of the neighbouring property, the proposed extension is not considered to be visually obtrusive or result in any significant loss of light to these occupiers.

Page 78 Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 80 Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 82 AGENDA ITEM 10

Plan: G DC/07/00580/REG3 Ward: Eastbury

Address: Eastbury Infants School, Dawson Avenue, Barking.

Development: Erection of 3 temporary demountable classroom buildings and alterations to boundary fence. Applicant: LBBD

Summary:

This application is part of a process of the gradual expansion of the infants school into a three form entry primary school as well as infants school spread over the whole site. The future redevelopment of the main comprehensive school building will result in a main junior school building although this is not dealt with as part of this application.

The application involves the demolition of the school annex and a single storey technology block and their replacement with two demountable single storey buildings with another located to the south west. The introduction of these three single storey buildings will be staggered over a period of one year, commencing in Autumn 2007. Each demountable building has a capacity of approximately 120 children. The application is for a temporary three year permission.

The demountable classrooms will be located a sufficient distance away from residential properties so as not to cause any detrimental amenity impact. The 360 pupil numbers envisaged will be far less than the previous capacity of the school and as such the application does not represent an over intensive use of the site.

Recommendation(s)

The Development Control Board is asked to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. F1B Details of Soft Landscaping

2. F2 Implementation of Soft Landscaping

3. F4 Details of Hard Landscaping

4. I12 Cycle Parking Details

5. M4 Hours of Construction Work

6. M5 Construction Work (Noise)

7. N7 Dust Suppression

8. P1 Details of Boundary Treatment

9. Q1 Details/Samples of Facing Materials

Page 83

10. R1 Ramped Access

11. The buildings hereby permitted shall be removed from the site and the site restored to its former condition on or before 28 August 2010.

12. No windows to the northern elevations of the demountables, containing classrooms 5 – 12, should be capable of being opened.

Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Daniel Nelson Senior Planning Officer Tel: 020 8227 3710 Senior Planning Officer Fax: 020 8227 3910 E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction and Description of Development

1.1 The application site is the Eastbury Comprehensive school site located between Lambourne Road and Dawson Avenue. The majority of the site is occupied by a series of buildings which comprised the comprehensive school (which is now defunct - the pupils having been relocated), these buildings include the main school building and annex, a gymnasium and dining block (all dating from the pre war period) and a block on stilts which dates from the post war period. The majority of these buildings are disused, although the main school building is presently used for a limited number of classes for the infants school. To the southern part of the site lies the infants school which is still operational. The application does not affect the infants school physically.

1.2 The application involves the demolition of the school annex and a single storey technology block, both on the northern edge of the school site and their replacement with two demountable single storey buildings with another located to the south west. These demountable buildings are intended to provide accommodation for the Primary school pupils based in the old secondary school main building, which is due to be demolished in 2008. One of the demountables is also to be used for additional pupils after summer 2008. Once the new primary school building is completed in summer 2009, the demountables will be removed.

2 Background

2.1 Previously approved single storey demountable building in 1995.

2.2 Eastbury Comprehensive school vacated these premises in 2005 and the pupils moved to the redeveloped Rosslyn Road school site.

2.3 This application is part of a wider education strategy for a greater provision of pupil places for juniors and infants within the Barking area with the aim of meeting present and future demand.

Page 84 3. Consultations

3.1 a) Adjoining Occupiers

The occupiers of 53 nearby residential properties were consulted on this application; No objection letters where received.

b) Access Officer

No response.

c) Arboriculture Manager

The easternmost proposed demountable building has been moved away from its originally proposed location so as to ensure the survival of two trees. This was in response to the Arboriculture Manager’s comments in response to the application.

4. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy

4.1 Policy C4 Retention of Existing Community Facilities Policy C11 New Educational Facilities Policy C12 Single Site Schools Policy C15 Access Policy C16 Safety and Security Policy D1 Urban Design Policy T1 Accessibility by Public Transport Policy T10 Land Use and Public Transport Policy T13 Development Standards Policy T19 Provision for Cycling

No Policy issue.

5. Analysis

5.1 The buildings due to be demolished as part of this application, namely the northern annexe to the main school building which includes the old school dining hall and a temporary classroom along the northern edge, are neither listed nor locally listed structures. The demolition of these buildings does therefore not require planning permission.

5.2 Dealing firstly with the visual aspect of the proposed buildings it is not considered that the development would have an adverse impact. The proposed buildings are lightweight one storey structures with grey and blue trims. The windows will have white UPVC framing. Consequently little visual impact will occur due to the low lying and inconspicuous nature of the proposed buildings. The Council is satisfied that educational accommodation standards will ensure that the classrooms provide a sufficient standard of accommodation. From an architectural perspective the design is adequate for the purpose, considering the limited timescale involved.

5.3 The application proposes that the nearest new classrooms to the closest residential properties (along 98 – 128 Lambourne Road) will be located 5.6m away from a 2m high boundary wall, which sits between the school site and properties to the north.

Page 85 These properties are located a further 10 metres or more away from the wall. This is considered a satisfactory distance to avoid any detrimental amenity impact. It is intended that a further 1.5metre high fence will be added to the wall, bringing the overall height up to 3.5metre and this fence will skirt from the northern edge around to the western side of the site.

5.4 All windows to the northern side of the demountable buildings, namely those windows closest to Lambourne Road have been conditioned to be non openable. This will not compromise the quality of educational accommodation as these windows are to a corridor rather than classrooms. Main school meals will be taken away from these classrooms.

5.5 No trees are envisaged to be lost as part of this application.

Background Papers

• Planning Application File

Page 86 Page 87 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 88 AGENDA ITEM 11

Plan: H DC/07/00746/FUL Ward: Whalebone Ward Address: 1 Woodlands Avenue, Chadwell Heath Development: Change of use to a day nursery Applicant: Mrs E Blanchard Summary:

This application relates to the change of use of a 5 bedroom single family dwelling house to a Day Nursery (Class D1) catering up to 40 children. The proposal does not comply with the Council’s Unitary Development Plan policies as the applicant has failed to justify the loss of the residential unit and has not demonstrated that there is an identified need for this use within the locality. The development does not provide adequate off-street car parking facilities and would adversely effect the residential amenities and living standards of nearby neighbouring occupiers.

Recommendation(s)

The Development Control Board is requested to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed use would result in the unjustified loss of a residential dwelling and as such is contrary to Policy H2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995).

2. The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that there is an identified need for the proposed use and as such is contrary to policy C2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995).

3. The proposal fails to provide any acceptable on-site parking and would give rise to increased parking pressures detrimental to pedestrian and vehicular safety, contrary to Policies C2 and T13 of the Councils Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995) and the Council’s Interim Car Parking Standards (2002),

4. The proposed use is inappropriate in scale in this end terraced house in that it would cause unacceptable nuisance by reason of noise and increased activity detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by and living standards of nearby residential occupiers, contrary to Policy C2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1995).

Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Nelupa Malik Planning Officer Tel: 020 8227 3888 Fax: 020 8227 3916 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 89 1. Introduction and Description of Development

1.1 The application property comprises a two storey end of terrace dwelling house located on the eastern side of Woodlands Avenue, Chadwell Heath. The immediate area comprises a mixture of residential and commercial properties. The northern boundary of the application site adjoins a rear service road/yard that serves commercial properties 146-154 High Road, Chadwell Heath. The property has been previously extended in the form of a two storey side extension which includes a garage and the property also has a rear conservatory.

1.2 This application relates to the change of use to a day nursery. The submitted plans indicate that internally at ground floor level the nursery will consist of a room designated as a “quiet area” for children of all ages, a staff room, a room for preschool children, a WC and kitchen and a second room for pre-school children in the conservatory. At first floor level there will be 2 rooms for toddlers, 2 baby rooms a staff WC and an office.

1.3 The proposed nursery will cater for up to 40 childcare places which, when at its maximum, will accommodate 12 children aged between 0-2 years, 12 children aged between 2-3 years and 16 children aged between 3-5 years. The nursery will operate between the hours of 8am to 6pm.

2. Background

2.1 There is no relevant planning history relating to this application.

3. Consultations

3.1 Adjoining Occupiers – Objections Received.

12 letters objecting to the application and a petition with 60 signatures have been submitted to the Council. The following concerns have been raised:

• Increase in parking pressures. • The property could not accommodate off-street car parking for 10 staff. • Proposed use will cause disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. • Development will impact on sewage system. • Noise and disturbance from the nursery will impact on the quality of life of the residents. • Location will cause danger to road users, pedestrians and children that will attend the nursery. • Development will devalue existing properties within the locality. • The property is not large enough to accommodate 40 children.

3.2 Traffic & Road Safety – No Response Received.

3.3 Children’s Services

• The proposed site is located near Furze Infant School which will have a 48 place nursery opening in March/April 2008.

Page 90 • It is also close to Wellgate Children’s Centre which has 52 places and William Bellamy Children’s Centre which has 69 places. • There are also three registered pre schools in the same area. • The plans shown and measurements are too small to accommodate the number of children indicated.

4. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy

4.1 Policy H2 Loss of Residential Policy C2 Premises for Facilities for the Community. Interim Car Parking Standards (January 2002)

Policy Issues – loss of residential, failure to demonstrate an identified need, insufficient off-street car parking and impact of neighbouring amenities.

5. Analysis

5.1 Policy H2 states that applications for changes of use from residential to a non- residential use will normally be refused. The Council will only consider relaxing this policy where:

i) Self-contained access to the units of accommodation is not available and cannot reasonably be provided. ii) The premises are situated in a poor environment or hazardous location. iii) The proposed change of use would provide benefits to the community. In these circumstances, the granting of permission will be dependent upon the proposed use not having any significant adverse effects on neighbouring properties, e.g. by reason of car parking, noise, etc. iv) The unit of accommodation is too small or lacks basic facilities.

5.2 Policy C2 states that planning permission will normally be granted for nurseries and other similar community facilities specifically to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups provided that amongst other things:

i) There is an identified need. ii) The proposal will have no significant adverse effect on nearby residential occupiers. iii) The proposal meets the Council’s car parking standards and does not result in any adverse highway consequences. iv) The size of the proposed use is consistent with the size of the property and the character of the neighbourhood.

5.3 In respect of this application the property is currently a large 5 bedroom dwelling that is functional as a single family dwelling house. The dwelling is not located in a poor environment and neither is it considered to be too small or lacking in basic facilities. Therefore the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the dwelling is no longer viable for residential use.

5.4 Although it is recognised that the proposed change of use would provide a community benefit, in terms of policy C2 the applicant was also asked to demonstrate that there is an identified need for this type of development within the vicinity of the application site. Comments received from the Council’s

Page 91 Children’s Services Department suggests that there are sufficient spaces available in the Wellgate Children’s Centre at Lawn Farm Grove and William Bellamy Children’s Centre in Frizlands Lane and in addition to this there will more spaces available in the new nursery at Furze Infants School located in Bennett Road, Chadwell Heath.

5.5 The applicant submitted a statement which in summary provides the following information:

• There is a high demand for a nursery in the area of Chadwell Heath. • Primary research was undertaken which demonstrates that out of 200 parents 65% wanted to return to work of which 72% preferred a Day Nursery as the choice of childcare. • There are currently no nurseries in the area of Chadwell Heath. • Secondary data derived from the 2001 Census demonstrates that there is a demand for a Nursery in this area. Research has shown that there are 571 children under the age of 5 in Chadwell Heath and 571 mothers currently looking after their children at home in Chadwell Heath.

5.6 In terms of the information provided by the applicant, it is unclear as to how exactly part of this research was undertaken. It is surprising that every child under the age of 5 in Chadwell Heath is being looked after during the day by their mothers. It is very unclear as to how this figure has been established by the applicant. Whilst the applicant has stated that 72% of those who took part in the research would prefer a Day Nursery as a means of providing childcare, this does not necessarily demonstrate that these same participants would utilise the proposed development. In terms of information derived from the 2001 Census, this was undertaken some considerable time ago and whilst at the time of the Census there may well have been a demand for such uses this does not demonstrate that this demand still exists today within the locality. Certainly the information provided by the Council’s Children’s Services Department suggests otherwise. The proposed new nursery at Furze Infants School will cater for 48 children and is located along Farrance Avenue which is parallel to Woodlands Avenue and within walking distance of the application property. There are also spaces available in William Bellamy Children’s Centre in Frizlands Lane and Wellgate Children’s Centre in Lawn Farm Grove, although admittedly these centres are sited slightly further south east (William Bellamy) and north (Wellgate). Wellgate Children’s Centre was contacted and they advised that the centre can cater for up to 52 children but currently they are only filling 40 spaces as they have reduced staffing at the Centre. There are also 3 preschools nearby, these are The Playtent Co-operative Ltd in Cecil Road and St Chads preschool in Eric Road, both of these are within walking distance of the application property and the third preschool is Beacon preschool located in Becontree Heath Methodist Church in The Broadway, Whalebone Lane South. However notwithstanding the above, it is not considered that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that that there is an identified need for this facility which could not be suitably located elsewhere within the Borough, and therefore the proposal is contrary to policy C2.

5.7 The presumption against the net loss of residential units and the need to demonstrate that such uses as that proposed in this application could not be reasonably accommodated elsewhere in the Borough, is further emphasised in a recent Council appeal decision (DC/06/01072/FUL). This application related to a

Page 92 similar development at 14 Manor Road, Dagenham and was refused by the Council on grounds that the proposed change of use to a Day Nursery would result in the unjustified loss of a residential unit. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as the inspector was not satisfied that the Appellant had demonstrated that there was an identified need in the area where the Day Nursery was proposed.

5.8 Policy C2 also requires that nearby residential occupiers are not adversely affected by any proposed use and that the use itself is consistent with the size of the property and the character of the neighbourhood. The application property is an end of terrace dwelling located in an area that comprises a mixture of residential and commercial. The property has a garden depth measuring some 18 metres deep to accommodate 40 children. In a property of this size catering for up to 40 children in a terraced house, any noise generated both internally and externally, particularly when there are groups of children in the garden, is bound to give rise to noise nuisance which could project some distance to neighbouring residential properties. Given that the application property is bordered by residential dwellings it is considered that the proposed use could have a significant adverse impact detrimental to the amenities enjoyed and the living standards of occupiers of nearby residential properties. It is considered that the size of the proposed use is inconsistent with the size of the property which should normally accommodate no more than 2 adults and 2-4 children.

5.9.1 In terms of car parking, the Interim Parking Standards requires that for nurseries and crèches 2 spaces per 3 staff is required. Policy T13 requires that access arrangements to community uses amongst other things, should give clear priority to pedestrian safety and amenity over general traffic movement. In respect of this application the supporting statement mentions that there will be 10 members of staff consisting of 1 Deputy Manager, 2 Heads for differing age ranges and 7 Nursery Nurses. The staff hierarchy shown in a flowchart indicated 13 people including a Nursery Manger, Head of Room 2-3 and the owner. The proposal therefore would require a maximum of 6-8 off-street car parking spaces. The applicants were asked to provide an off-street car parking layout, the plan submitted indicates that the front garden would be able to accommodate at least 1 car on the front drive and that there are spaces for 15 cars on-street towards the end of Woodlands Avenue which are not outside residential properties. The applicant has stated that parents will be directed to this part of the road for “drop-offs” and “pick-ups”. However in practical terms it is unlikely that this area will be utilised given that this part of the road is sited some 120 metres away from the application property. The property falls within an area that has a PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) of 3 which is moderate and the parking provision within the locality appears to be extremely stretched. Therefore it is considered that in this locality the maximum car parking standard should be provided for this development. Whilst the applicant considers that at least 1 car parking space could be provided on the front garden of the premises, it is not considered that in reality this could be provided. The property as front garden depth of less then 3 metres and even if one car could park on this property this would have to be parallel to the highway. This could provide some difficulty in manoeuvring when accessing or exiting the property. Therefore it is considered that that the property could not comfortably accommodate even a single vehicle and the use could potentially be detrimental to pedestrian and vehicular safety. In addition to this due to the nature of the proposed use, there would be a considerable degree of short term on-street parking at various times of the day associated with parents dropping off and picking up their children on a short stay

Page 93 basis. The property lies adjacent to a rear service road/yard and some 35 metres south east of the junction of Woodlands Avenue with High Road which is a relatively busy road. Given the current high parking levels in Woodlands Avenue, which is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of the residential dwellings along this road have little or no possibility of parking off-street, there is the possibility that parents will park their cars in the adjacent rear service road/yard. It is considered that this could potentially cause congestion close to a busy junction. In addition to this increased vehicular movements resulting from ‘pick-ups’ and ‘drop- offs’ could give rise to general noise and disturbance issues which would further detrimentally impact upon the amenities of the area.

5.11 In terms of other neighbour objections, the impact on the sewage system is a matter that falls under the Building Regulations and therefore little weight can be given to this objection. The devaluation of properties is not a planning matter and cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of this application. Planning Policy Statement 1 states that the planning system does not exist in order to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another.

5.12 Overall it is considered that the proposed use is not suitable in terms of design and scale in the context of the existing building and surrounding area. The proposed use would result in an adverse impact on neighbouring residential occupiers and an unjustifiable loss of a single family dwelling. Furthermore it has not been sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that there is a need for this nursery in this location and the development has failed to provide adequate off-street parking facilities to accommodate the use.

Background Papers

• Planning Application File

Page 94 Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 96 Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 98 Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 100 AGENDA ITEM 12

Plan: I DC/07/00597/REG3 Ward: Village Ward

Address: Leys Primary School Leys Avenue Dagenham Essex

Development: Erection of a single storey children's centre with 1 no. wind turbines, mini-soccer pitch and landscaping Applicant: LBBD - Children's Services

Summary:

On balance the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with policies due to its size, design and locality, also minimal impact is perceived to result from the proposed development.

Recommendation(s)

The Development Control Board is asked to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1) B01 Time Limit

2) F01B Soft Landscaping

3) F02 Landscaping Implementation

4) No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until a green travel plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The green travel plan should outline proposals to minimise car-borne trips and encourage the use of public transport and, once approved, should thereafter be maintained and reviewed.

Reason: To encourage the alternatives to the private car as a means of accessing the site in the interests of sustainability and minimising pollution emissions.

5) Prior to the occupation of the development details of any proposed external lighting scheme and security measures to reduce the potential for crime shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the locality by avoiding light pollution and reducing the potential for crime related activity in accordance with Policy DE6 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6) P01 Details of Boundary Treatment

7) Details of Dustbin Enclosure

8) Q01 Details/Samples of Facing Materials

9) Details of the size, sitting and dimensions of the vehicular access to the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the site.

Page 101 10) The car parking areas, including designated disabled bays 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.

11) All parts of the development, including the car parks and all external circulation areas, 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) The site/premises/building shall only be used between the hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday.

13) Prior to the occupation of the hereby permitted development the existing temporary demountable children’s centre (granted under DC/06/00016/REG3) shall be removed from the site and within 2 months of the occupation of the new development the proposed football pitch shall be fully constructed and available for use in accordance with drawing 860-102 Revision B (received 04/06/2007).

Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Maria Tourvas Principle planning Officer Tel: 020 8227 3849 Fax: 020 8227 3916 E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introductions and Description of Development

1.1 The application site is located west of Leys Avenue located on the southerly junction with Wellington Drive, 125m from the main junction with Rainham Road South. The site at present is the location for the Leys Primary School and Nursery.

The application is for the construction of a new children’s centre that would provide day care, crèche, midwife, social worker, speech and language therapy and other community sessions.

The scheme would provide a new purpose designated football pitch where the temporary children’s centre is located (reference 06/00016/REG3). The newly proposed centre would be located on what is currently a playing field.

The proposed development is a single storey building that would have two main walls running down the centre of the structure with pod like elements on the north and south elevation. It would have glazed frontage, and a ‘wing’ shaped roof with a green roof down the spine of the building. The proposal as a whole would have a total floorspace area of 643 square metres sited within the school curtilage of 1.62 hectares.

The use would operate between the hours of 8am and 6pm. The day care centre would provide care throughout the day during these hours. The crèche, social work and community activities would operate on two sessions per day between 9- 11.30am and 12.30-3pm. To facilitate the additional use proposed on site 5 additional parking spaces would be provided to the existing 30 spaces.

To assist the energy requirement for the centre photovoltaic, ground source heat pump and one turbine 15m high would facilitate in energy generation that is Page 102 proposed to be sited approximately 67m from the rear elevations of the flats located west of Wellington Drive.

2. Background

2.1 There is a history of planning applications on the subject site, however the most relevant was for the erection of demountable classroom block to form a children’s centre 06/00016/REG3. This was granted consent March 2006 temporarily until March 2008 where the demountable has been conditioned to be removed due to its unsuitable temporary nature.

2.2 There is a current outstanding planning application for the re-location of this demountable to the north of the school site to be used for the purposes of staff facilities (reference 07/00743/REG3).

2.3 A previous similar scheme as the subject of this application has been withdrawn due to Crime Prevention design issues, which have since only partially been addressed (reference 07/00072/REG3).

3. Consultations a) Neighbours/Publicity

The surrounding neighbouring properties have been notified of the planning application and the scheme has been advertised on site and in the local press. As a result of the consultation process there has been two letters of objection received raising the following points;

• Noise from turbines and children • Disturbance from football pitch • Glare from floodlights from pitch if used at night • One way in and out estate therefore the scheme would result in more traffic, lorries up and down all day • Hours of the centre – if they are out of school hours there would be an excess of cars using road to ferry children. • No indication of opening hours • Problematic construction vehicles • Turbines too close to homes • Land could be put to better use to benefit estate b) Traffic and Road Safety

• A number of comments have been raised. However, other than those raised in the main body of the report these are not considered to be material to the determination of this application. • The main vehicle entrance into the site for the staff is via leys Avenue as existing and the pedestrian movement would be via Wellington Drive (south). Emergency access is not considered to be an issue as the LFEPA have not objected to this application on access grounds. • The requirement of a Section 106 Agreement to secure monies to yellow line Leys Avenue as there are vehicles parking opposite the existing vehicle entrance is considered to be unreasonable as this is an existing problem.

Page 103 c) London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

• The Brigade is satisfied with the proposals with regard to Brigade Access only. d) Crime Prevention Officer

• Concerns over non-addressed surveillance points. e) Sustainability Team

A number of comments were raised requiring the submission of further information. Following the submission of this the latest comments are listed below;

• BREEAM assessment Technically speaking, it is not classed as major development. In such cases, our Planning Advice Note 5 does not seek a Post Construction Certificate demonstrating which BREEAM level has been achieved. But it does state that we should be encouraging a level of 'very good' to be achieved. I understand however that this is a Council development and we should therefore be looking to achieve best practice. On the face of it this development looks very good in sustainability terms; it is unfortunate that this can not be demonstrated through a BREEAM assessment.

• There is a Pre-Assessment Estimator for BREEAM Schools 2006 which is designed to be completed prior to development to allow for a quick evaluation of what the development would achieve were it subjected to an assessment. Here is the link to download it from the internet: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/14_PreAssessmentEstimatorREV06.pdf It would be good if the applicant could complete it. This would assure us to a degree of the sustainability of the proposed development.

• Query regarding the shower unit in the Nursery Our original comment included a comment with regard to a shower in the nursery unit and Haverstock Associates have queried this. In the Travel Plan submitted together with the planning application (page 3-4 of 21), it is stated that there are no shower facilities provided but that there is a shower (out of use) in the nursery. The provision of shower facilities for staff as part of the Travel Plan would encourage cycling - perhaps this can revisited as part of the Travel Plan?

4. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy

Strategic Policy T: The Council will encourage and identify, in co-operation with voluntary groups and other agencies, the development of community facilities and services which meet the needs of the Borough's population, especially for disadvantaged groups, and in areas of social need.

Strategic Policy U: Measures will be taken in conjunction with appropriate agencies to facilitate the provision of necessary educational and health facilities to meet the need of the Borough's residents.

Strategic Policy BB: The Council will actively assist and encourage through management measures, a road network that is sympathetic to traffic restraint and gives priority to Page 104 essential toad users, environmental improvement, pedestrian safety and safety of all users through casualty reduction.

DE1 Urban Design C1 Efficient Use of Community Buildings C2 Premises for Facilities for the Community C10 Provision of Child Care Facilities C11 New Educational Facilities C13 Community-Use of Educational Facilities G40 Energy G72 Community-Use T13 Development Standards Appendix 6.5 (Parking Standards) Interim Parking Standards (January 2002) Supplementary Guidance Note 14 - Baby Care, Crèches and Nurseries

Policy issue - noise and disturbance and inadequate car parking

5. Analysis

5.1 Principle of Development Policy C2 for Premises for the Facilities for the Community emphasises that planning permission would normally be granted for such community facilities subject to meeting a list of criteria;

1) That there is an identified need; 2) The proposal would have not significant adverse effect on nearby residential occupiers; 3) The proposal meets the Councils parking standards and does not result in any adverse highway consequences………

5.2 The proposal would provide a community facility of which it is generally considered to be necessary in the surrounding area and acknowledged within the Council that there is a need for nurseries within the Borough and would be located within an existing school site. The scheme would expand on facilities that are provided that all fall within the same Use Class Order of D1 Non-Residential Institutions. There is a nursery building on site that would be reallocated for alternative school uses at a later date, such as for children with learning difficulties. The development in principle, in terms of where it is located and use, is considered acceptable as it is making ‘efficient’ use of land as stipulated in Policy C1 and C13, also in turn to some degree mitigate the level of impact the scheme would have as some of the people that would be visiting the centre would present have children attending the primary school.

5.3 Design The proposed development would be a single storey building that would match the other school buildings on site. The building would be approximately 33m long by 29m wide and 5.2m in height. It would be located on a playing field however as it would be giving back a playing area it is not considered to be a departure from the plan. The building’s design is based on two central walls that run parallel to each other. The main lobby, meeting and community area is proposed to be located at the main entrance of the building to the west and all the children’s activities would be beyond that towards the eastern part of the building, stemming from a central piazza. Page 105

5.4 The roof would be in a ‘wing’ style above the building and the pods that come-off the building. Down the spine of the roof a green roof area is proposed. This is promoted in the Council’s Green Roofs Planning Advice Note 1 which highlights that green roofs help promote habitats, improving character and appearance of building and the surrounding area and mitigates surface water run off. The use of the green roof has been stated within Council guidance notes to also improve heat and noise insulation.

5.5 The energy credential of the application has been boosted by providing photovoltaics, ground source heat pump and a turbine 15m high would facilitate in energy generation. It has been stated in an renewable energy source breakdown that all heating and hot water demands would be met through the ground source heat pump, also the photovoltaics and turbine would met. A 10% figure for renewable energy is encouraged in all new developments through local and regional level policies, of which it is considered to have been achieved within the proposed scheme. Through the proposed differing elements within the energy strategy it is stated to achieve 95% Carbon Dioxide savings. A BREEAM pre- assessment was carried out by the agents of which the scheme came out at a Very Good rating.

5.6 The application has been amended from the previous application providing 3 proposed turbines ranging from 15.4m to 21.3m in height to 1 turbine 15m high. The type of turbine proposed is a quite revolution whereby it is spiral shaped therefore it accepts the wind from all directions and has been tested to fall within 5dB of the lowest background noise level at 24 and 50m. In terms of its size, design and siting it is sufficiently at a distance away from residential dwellings.

5.7 The overall design of the scheme has formed part of active negotiations between the agents and the Crime Prevention Officer and is still the subject of discussion between the two parties regarding internal amendments to layout and surveillance equipment in order to qualify for the Secure by Design Certificate. However, this does not prejudice the determination of the application.

5.8 A new purpose designated football pitch where the temporary children’s centre is presently located (reference 06/00016/REG3) would be given back to the site. This would be for the purpose of the school site as a whole and would only be used during opening hours of the site. No floodlighting has been proposed for the pitch. Therefore no additional impact is considered would result from this playing field.

5.9 On balance the design of the development is considered to accord with UDP policies.

5.10 Impact of Change of Use The proposal is stated would cater for a total of 67 children per day, 82 adults and 27 to 33 staff. The day care element would provide all day care for 47 children between the ages of 0-4 years between the hours of 8 to 6pm, with 21 staff catering after them. The crèche, social work and community activities would operate on 2.5 hour sessions per day between 9-11.30am and 12.30-3pm. The crèche would have up to 10 children per session, the social work would be 15 people per session and the community activities expect up to 26 people.

5.11 During the hours of 8 – 11.30am Monday-Friday there would be 98 clients and 33 staff entering and leaving the proposed development, between 12.30-3pm there Page 106 would be 51 people and 8 staff, also between 4-6pm there would be the disbursement of the day cares children and staff leaving the development (47 children and 21 staff).

5.12 At present the temporary demountable children’s centre only caters for 20 children. There would an obvious increase in activity as a result of the proposed scheme; however the trips to the development are perceived to be mitigated by trips already made to the primary/nursery school due to children and siblings already attending. It is also considered and it has been highlighted in the agent’s statement that a number of the trips would be on foot due to the local catchment area of the education facilities proposed. Mitigation would also result from the staggering of hours and uses.

5.13 Parking The proposed scheme would require 16 parking spaces as specified in the Interim Parking Standards (January 2002), however 5 parking spaces have been provided for staff amongst the existing 30 spaces for the present use. There is a proposed disabled parking bay on street. However, as this is outside the sites’ redline boundaries this is an agreement that would need to be secured between the applicant and the Highways Authority. Due to the catchement area of the proposal, the provision of cycle bays and limited provision of parking it is considered that the scheme could not be refused on parking grounds alone and would require a green travel plan condition should it be recommended for approval.

5.14 There are no parking restrictions within the surrounding vicinity of the school other than speed humps. The proposed entrance into the site would be located to the south of the site the other side of the primary/nursery’s existing entrance therefore reduced conflict is considered in terms of movement together with the staggering of hours.

6. Recommendation

6.1 On balance the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies and therefore planning permission should be granted subject to conditions.

Background Papers • Planning Application File

Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 108 Page 109 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 110 Page 111 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 112 Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 114 AGENDA ITEM 13

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD

PLANNING APPLICATION CONSULTATION

Mixed use development comprising an 8,000 seat multi-use auditorium, four- storey office, four-storey multi-use building, chapel, multi-storey car park, new access and landscaping.

Plots 10-12, Beam Reach 5, Off Consul Avenue and Marsh Way, Rainham, London Borough of Havering.

Summary

A full planning application has been submitted to the London Borough of Havering / London Thames Gateway Development Corporation for the development of a site at Beam Reach in LB Havering. The application proposes a major mixed-use development as summarised above. As an adjoining authority this Council has been consulted and invited to comment on the submitted planning application and accompanying Environmental Statement.

The purpose of this report is to describe the proposals and assess the likely impacts on the Borough. Any comments or representations will be forwarded to LB Havering, who are responsible for processing the planning application, and taken into account when the planning application is determined.

Recommendation(s)

That Members note the contents of this report and consider the issues raised relating to the planning application submitted by KICC / LDA in respect of the Borough in general and Gascoigne Ward in particular

Contact Officer Title: Contact Details: Matthew Gallagher Team Leader Tel: 020 8227 3552 Development Control Fax: 020 8227 3916 E-mail: [email protected]

1.0 Introduction and Description of Development:

1.1 The application site comprises a roughly rectangular shaped plot of land located in between the A13 and Barking-Dagenham Dock-Rainham railway corridor and immediately to the west of Manor Way. The site has an area of some 5.5 hectares and is accessed from Consul Avenue, which in turn is accessed from the Marsh Way junction with the A13. The site is located approximately 800m to the east of the River Beam which forms the boundary between Havering and Barking and Dagenham. The site forms a part of the

Page 115 larger Beam Reach development area where road infrastructure has been built to open-up vacant plots for future development.

1.2 The planning application has been jointly submitted by Kingsway International Christian Centre (KICC) and the London Development Agency (LDA). The application proposes a phased redevelopment as described below.

1.3 Temporary accommodation during construction comprising:

multi-use2 auditorium / youth hall / indoor sports and meeting facilities of 5,000m ;

2 offices and other Class B1 uses including counselling rooms totalling 2,430m ;

ancillary uses comprising Class A1 retail, parking for between 395-445 vehicles and KICC buses, access roads and servicing facilities, toilets, plant, temporary landscaping and Class A3 food and drink provision.

1.4 Permanent accommodation comprising:

2 multi-use auditorium2 of 8,000 seats on two levels (13,570m ) and recording studios (150m );

2 2 2 class B1 offices (3,024m ), counselling rooms (2,184m ) and refectory (686m ) in a four-storey building;

2 chapel (306m ) (2-storeys);

multi-use building for children and youth comprising training / educational facilities, IT / library, gymnasium / dance studio and crèche (four-storeys),

ancillary uses comprising multi-storey car park of 1,200 spaces, 20 motorcycle spaces, 89 cycle spaces on seven levels (36,449m2), parking for KICC mini- buses, access roads, bus / taxi pick-ups, plant, external play area / multi-use games areas and landscaping.

2 1.5 In total the gross built floorspace of the development would total 63,355m . elements of the development including the main auditorium, meeting rooms, halls, crèche, refectory and play area would be available for use by external groups or individuals. The application seeks unrestricted hours and days of use for a number of the facilities.

1.6 The application has been submitted jointly by KICC and LDA. The LDA own the site and the adjoining land forming Beam Reach. KICC are a charitable church-based organisation currently operating from a site in Hackney which forms part of the 2012 Olympic site. The organisation therefore needs to relocate. The current venue used by the organisation includes an auditorium for up to 4,000 people.

Page 116 1.7 If approved, the construction period would last approximately 5 years and would take place on a phased basis with initial temporary accommodation utilised whilst the permanent buildings are constructed.

1.8 The planning application is supported by a number of documents including an environmental statement, transport assessment, design and access statement and sustainability study.

2.0 Environmental Statement

2.1 The environmental statement (ES) covers topic areas which are summarised as follows.

2.2 Socio-Economic and Population impacts – these impacts have been assessed against baseline data for six wards surrounding the development including Village, River and Alibon. The ES suggests that the overall socio-economic impact of the development would be beneficial due to increased employment opportunities during and after construction and due to the range of community facilities offered by the development.

2.3 Noise and Vibration – construction traffic associated with the development is expected to introduce only negligible increases in road traffic noise at nearby receptors compared to current baseline conditions. Operational road traffic noise and noise associated with the use of the car park is not considered to be significant given high ambient noise levels from the adjacent A13 and given the screening influence of commercial buildings on the A1306 in Havering. Noise generated by amplified music and speech would not be significant subject to the detailed design of the buildings.

2.4 Ecology – the development would result in the loss of trees and vegetation / bare ground with possible implications for invertebrate species. However, in mitigation the proposals include provision for brown roofs, green walls, ditches and hedgerows which will provide new habitat.

2.5 Water Resources – impacts on groundwater, surface water, sewers, water supply and flood risk are considered by the application. The ES includes a flood risk assessment. Mitigation measures are proposed and subject to these measures the development would generate moderate beneficial impacts.

2.6 Air Quality – a number of receptors were tested to assess baseline conditions for air quality and the potential impact of the development. One of these air quality receptors was location on the A1306 adjacent to the Borough boundary. The assessment concludes that the effect on surrounding air quality is negligible.

2.7 Microclimate – potential impacts on microclimate will be addressed at detailed design stage.

Page 117 2.8 Soils – the site has a history of industrial uses and there is evidence of contamination on parts of the site. Subject to suitable remediation there are no significant environmental effects.

2.9 Townscape – the temporary buildings would have alight adverse impact on views in the area. However, once completed the visual qualities of the surrounding area would be enhanced.

2.10 Landscape – During the construction phase a slight / substantial adverse effect on landscape would be expected. Once completed the development is expected to have no change upon baseline landscape conditions.

2.11 Waste – the development would create waste from the construction phase requiring disposal off-site. Mitigation will reduce the quantity of waste but slight adverse effects would remain.

2.12 The ES concludes that no significant adverse effects on the environment would result from the development.

3.0 Transport Assessment

3.1 The planning application is accompanied by a transport assessment (TA) as the issue of movement of KICC members to and from the site has perhaps the most implications for this Borough.

3.2 KICC members reside all over London however there is a distinct concentration of members in inner east London (Hackney / Tower Hamlets / Newham / Waltham Forest). Membership is less concentrated further east into Barking and Dagenham and Havering. The site is not easily accessible from mainline railway stations being approximately equidistant from Dagenham Dock and Rainham stations on the C2C line. Bus services in the area include the no.287 which runs along New Road (A1306). Marsh Way and the CEME site is served by the no. 174 bus route but this service does not operate on Sundays. The site is therefore not in a location which could be described as highly accessible to a range of transport modes.

3.3 The TA therefore promotes a travel plan to mitigate impacts of the development on the transport network and specifically to minimise the use of the private car. The travel plan suggests that Barking town centre is used as a pick-up and drop-off site for a bus service provided by KICC for its members. The TA recognises that Barking station is accessible from a number of locations and that KICC members would find it relatively easy to reach this station. The travel plan proposes that existing parking bays on Abbey Road, opposite the Abbey retail park, are used by the KICC shuttle bus service as a pick-up and drop-off point on Sundays. Passengers would walk through the town centre from the station to reach the shuttle bus service.

3.4 After the collection of KICC members the buses would follow a route along Gascoigne Road to the A13 and then eastbound to the site application site. The return route would follow the A13 westbound then northwards on the A406

Page 118 to London Road returning to Abbey Road. A fleet of up to twenty, 75-seater buses would be involved with a maximum of five buses at Abbey Road at any one time. The service would commence 90 minutes prior to a service or event and would be for the use of KICC members only.

3.5 The implications of the shuttle bus service for the Borough which Members may wish to consider are therefore the effect of the bus movements on the Boroughs highway network and the impact of pedestrian routes through the town centre.

3.6 Up to twenty 75-seater buses are proposed giving a carrying capacity of 1,500 passengers. An average of 2.5 round trips are expected and so a total of up to 3,750 people could potentially use the shuttle bus service. As mentioned above the service would commence 90 minutes before a planned service or event and finish 90 minutes after a service. There would be a maximum of 5no. buses at any one time waiting or loading at Abbey Road and a similar number at the KICC site. The remaining 10no. buses would be en-route between Abbey Road and the KICC site. The route to the KICC site would follow Gascoigne Road and Members will be aware that this road is already served by a bus route (no. 62). It is not considered that the parking of buses along Abbey Road opposite the retail park would cause any harm to highway safety nor injury to local amenity. However the movement of buses along Gascoigne Road and the A13 may be harmful to amenity given the frequency of vehicle movements which are anticipated, despite the fact that this is an existing bus route. The potential is for 50 bus movement spread over 90 minutes which equates to one movement about every two minutes for two periods on a Sunday. There is also the potential for other mid week or evening meetings which may result in the bus transfer being used. There is an alternative route down Ripple Road to Lodge Ave but this is not the route specified on the application. There is also the possibility that buses returning may be tempted by passenger pressure to drop closer to the station, but TfL have stated that they will not allow these buses to use the existing bus only routes through the Town Centre, In practice this may be difficult to stop and would not be enforceable by the Local authority. Members may wish to consider if this number of buses would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents in Gasciogne Ward.

3.7 The most direct pedestrian route from Barking station to Abbey Road would follow Station Parade into East Street and across Abbey Green, a distance of approximately 650m. This distance could be covered in an average walking time of some 8 minutes. The walking route is mainly pedestrianised and avoids residential properties. In these circumstances it is not considered that the pedestrian movements proposed would result in harm to highway safety or amenity.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 The location of the proposed development at Beam Reach is sufficiently distant from the Borough boundary that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts on Barking and Dagenham. The proposed shuttle bus

Page 119 service would have implications for the town centre the effect on the operation of the highway and local amenity are not considered to be significant.

Page 120 AGENDA ITEM 14

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD

28 Aug 2007

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & BUILDING CONTROL MANAGER , SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION

TOWN PLANNING APPEALS FOR INFORMATION

Summary

This report advises Members of recent Appeals, that have been lodged and the outcomes of decisions made and those that have been withdrawn.

Recommendation

Members are asked to note this report.

Contact Officer: Tim Lewis Development & Building Tel: 020 8227 3706 Control Manager E-mail: [email protected]

1. Appeals Lodged

1.1 The following appeals have been lodged:

a) Erection of two-storey side extension and single/two-storey rear extensions in connection with converting the property to form 4 no. one-bedroom flats (re-submission of planning application reference 07/00111/FUL) (07/00531/FUL). - 35 Shafter Road Dagenham

2. Appeals Determined

2.1 The following appeals have been determined:

None

3. Appeals Withdrawn

3.1 The following appeals have been withdrawn:

None

Page 121 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 122 AGENDA ITEM 15

LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Applications Decided under Delegated powers 9 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00493/ Application P J Property Ltd Change of use to Classes B1 Valence FUL Permitted (business), B2 (general industrial) and Ward on 9 July B8 (storage or distribution) (2002) 2007 23 - 27 Kemp Road Dagenham Essex RM8 1ST

07/00499/ Application Crownwall Ltd Conversion of ground floor into 3 Class Gascoigne FUL Permitted A1 retail units and erection of roof Ward on 9 July extension in connection with conversion (2002) 2007 of upper levels into 3 two-bedroom flats The Westbury Arms Ripple Road Barking Essex IG11 7PR

Page 123 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 124 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Applications Decided/Refused under Delegated powers 10 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00372/ Application LBBD Installation of 3 no. free-standing River ADV Permitted sponsor boards Ward on 10 July Roundabout At Junction Of Ripple (2002) 2007 Road (A1306) And A13 Dagenham

07/00373/ Application LBBD Installation of 3 no. free-standing River ADV Permitted sponsor boards Ward on 10 July Roundabout At Junction Of Choats (2002) 2007 Manor Way And A13 Dagenham

07/00456/ Application Mr Mumdul Islam Erection of a single storey rear Longbridge FUL Permitted extension and a first floor side Ward on 10 July extension (2002) 2007 73 Westrow Drive Barking Essex IG11 9BL

07/00510/ Application Mr Wilson Application consent to carry out work on Eastbrook TPO Refused preserved trees: Reduction of Ailanthus Ward on 10 July Altissima (Tree of Heaven) crown by (2002) 2007 10-15% and remove dead wood 2 Jasmine Road Rush Green Romford Essex RM7 0WZ

07/00520/ Application London & Application consent to carry out work on Village TPO Permitted Quadrant Housing a preserved tree: Re-pollarding of Ward on 10 July Trust poplar (2002) 2007 159 Honey Close Dagenham Essex RM10 8TG

07/00524/ Application Mrs Ayfer Aykac Retrospective permission for the Whalebone FUL Permitted installation of a new shop front including Ward on 10 July installation of roller shutters (2002) 2007 20 Whalebone Lane South Dagenham Essex RM8 1BJ

Page 125 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Applications Decided/Refused under Delegated powers 10 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00538/ Application Barry Gane Installation of PV solar panels onto flat Thames FUL Permitted roof of rear extension Ward on 10 July 48 Blessing Way Barking Essex (2002) 2007 IG11 0XG

Page 126 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Applications Decided under Delegated powers 11 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00402/ Application CWS Financial Installation of three internally Goresbrook ADV Permitted Services illuminated fascia signs and a projecting Ward on 11 July box sign (2002) 2007 527 Gale Street Dagenham Essex RM9 4TR

07/00412/ Application Robert & Fiona Construction of a vehicular crossover Mayesbrook FUL Permitted Fisher 352 Porters Avenue Dagenham Ward on 11 July Essex RM8 2EF (2002) 2007

Page 127 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 128 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Applications Decided/Refused under Delegated powers 13 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00419/ Application Mr A Aslam Erection of a single storey rear Abbey FUL Permitted extension Ward on 13 July 60 Salisbury Avenue Barking (2002) 2007 Essex IG11 9XR

07/00513/ Application Bank Machine Ltd Installation of a ATM Longbridge FUL Permitted 30 Faircross Parade Longbridge Road Ward on 13 July Barking Essex IG11 8UW (2002) 2007

07/00514/ Application Bank Machine Ltd Installation of an internally illuminated Longbridge ADV Permitted sign around the ATM Ward on 13 July 30 Faircross Parade Longbridge Road (2002) 2007 Barking Essex IG11 8UW

07/00515/ Application Mr Singh Erection of a single storey rear Chadwell FUL Permitted extension, roof extension above Heath Ward on 13 July existing garage with the construction of (2002) 2007 two rear dormer windows and a front dormer window

22 Tolworth GardensTH Chadwell Heath Essex RM6 5

07/00516/ Application Abiodun Adebisi Construction of a vehicular crossover Mayesbrook FUL Permitted 345 Porters Avenue Dagenham Ward on 13 July Essex RM9 4NA (2002) 2007

07/00517/ Application P A Gautama Erection of a single storey rear Heath FUL Permitted extension (2002) on 13 July 178 Marston Avenue Dagenham Essex 2007 RM10 7LS

Page 129 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Applications Decided/Refused under Delegated powers 13 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00525/ Application Barry Tucker Installation of 2 no. illuminated poster Eastbrook ADV Refused Properties hoardings (2002) on 13 July 796 - 806 Dagenham Road Dagenham 2007 Essex RM10 7UB

07/00529/ Application Quamil Maci Erection of a two storey side extension Chadwell FUL Refused 35 West Road Chadwell Heath Heath on 13 July Essex RM6 6YB (2002) 2007

07/00563/ Application Ms Pauline Hart Erection of first floor rear extension Eastbury FUL Permitted 14 Essex Road Barking Essex Heath on 13 July IG11 7QL (2002) 2007

07/00564/ Certificate Mr & Mrs Inayat Application for a Certificate of Alibon CLU_P Issued on lawfulness for a proposed development: Heath 13 July Erection of a single storey rear (2002) 2007 extension 137 Hunters Hall Road Dagenham Essex RM10 8LH

07/00354/ Application Mrs Farah Khan Erection of a conservatory Becontree FUL Issued on 23 Butler Road Dagenham Heath 13 July Essex RM8 2DT (2002) 2007

Page 130 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Application Decided under Delegated Powers 18 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00536/ Application Power House Retention of building for use as a Eastbrook FUL Permitted International community centre/offices with Ward on 18 July Ministries alterations to parking layout (2002) 2007 Unit 3 280 Oxlow Lane Dagenham Essex RM10 7YX

Page 131 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 132 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Application Decided under Delegated Powers 19 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00547/ Application Mr & Mrs Ade Erection of two storey side and single Eastbrook FUL Permitted Alawode storey rear extensions and conversion Ward on 19 July of existing garage to study and utility (2002) 2007 room 39 Park Drive Dagenham Essex RM10 7AB

Page 133 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 134 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Applications Decided/Refused under Delegated Powers 20 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00473/ Application Romasave Part change of use of ground floor to a Thames FUL Refused Property Services cafe (A3) incorporating elevational Ward on 20 July Ltd alterations (2002) 2007 12 Thames Road Barking Essex IG11 0HU

07/00492/ Application Darius Use of shop for mixed Class A1/A5 use Abbey FUL Permitted Stankevicius (shop/hot food takeaway) Ward on 20 July 1 - 2 Clockhouse Parade Clockhouse (2002) 2007 Avenue Barking Essex

07/00554/ Application Mr Petry Erection of a two storey side extension Parsloes FUL Permitted and a part single part two storey rear Ward on 20 July extension (2002) 2007 79 Westfield Road Dagenham Essex RM9 5BP

Page 135 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 136 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Applications Decided under Delegated Powers 23 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00506/ Application Mr Sasu & Miss Erection of two storey side and single Heath FUL Permitted Costea storey rear extensions Ward on 23 July 33 Trefgarne Road Dagenham (2002) 2007 Essex RM10 7QT

07/00565/ Application Begum Hure Demolition of rear garage and the Whalebone FUL Permitted Ruksar erection of a two storey side extension Ward on 23 July and a single storey rear extension (2002) 2007 38 Saville Road Chadwell Heath Essex RM6 6DT

07/00659/ Prior Cameron Taylor Application for prior approval for Abbey PRIOR approval demolition works Ward required 221-256 The Lintons Barking Essex (2002) on 23 July 2007

Page 137 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 138 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Applications Decided/Refused under Delegated Powers 24 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00298/ Application Mr C Rattan Conversion of ground floor into 3 one- Village FUL Permitted bedroom flats Ward on 24 July 89 - 91A Broad Street Dagenham (2002) 2007 Essex RM10 9HP

07/00461/ Application Abdul Hafeeze Conversion of garage into a habitable Longbridge FUL Refused room and erection of a first floor side Ward on 24 July extension and a two storey rear (2002) 2007 extension 97 Westrow Drive Barking Essex IG11 9BL

07/00567/ Application Mr A Cranfield Erection of a two storey side extension River FUL Permitted and a single storey front extension Ward on 24 July 80 Arnold Road Dagenham (2002) 2007 Essex RM9 6AN

07/00571/ Application Mr R Sullivan Erection of a single storey rear Alibon FUL Permitted extension Ward on 24 July 164 Sterry Road Dagenham (2002) 2007 Essex RM10 8QA

Page 139 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 140 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Application Decided under Delegated Powers 26 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00424/ Application Leonard Aideloje Construction of a vehicular crossover Parsloes FUL Permitted 191 Wood Lane Ward on 26 July Dagenham (2002) 2007 Essex RM8 3LH

Page 141 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 142 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM SPATIAL REGENERATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REGENERATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD Application Decided/Refused under Delegated Powers 27 July 2007

Application Decision Applicant Brief Description of Development Ward Reference and Location

07/00577/ Application Tony Baisden Installation of front awning Goresbrook FUL Permitted 26 - 28 Goresbrook Road Dagenham Ward on 27 July Essex RM9 4UR (2002) 2007

07/00578/ Certificate Mr I Drake Application for a Certificate of Longbridge CLU_P Refused Lawfulness of a proposed development: Ward on 27 July Loft conversion involving part hip to (2002) 2007 gable roof extension and construction of rear dormer window 214 Westrow Drive Barking Essex IG11 9BT

07/00583/ Application Mr Harry Bansal Erection of front porch, two storey side Longbridge FUL Permitted and single storey rear extension Ward on 27 July 21 Oakley Avenue Barking (2002) 2007 Essex IG11 9JD

07/00586/ Application Dagenham Erection of smoking shelter Village FUL Permitted Conservative & Conservative Club Salisbury Road Ward on 27 July Social Club Dagenham Essex RM10 8TT (2002) 2007

Page 143 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 144