planning committee 18 march 2019 report of the chief ... · planning appeal performance; and...

PLANNING COMMITTEE

18 March 2019

REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNER

Planning Committee Performance Review Sub Committee

FOR INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

Summary

The Planning Committee Performance Review Sub-Committee met on 21 February 2019

The Sub-Committee selected six delegated decisions, made since 1 January 2018, to evaluate. Appendix 1 shows the results of the evaluation. The Sub-Committee was satisfied with the results of the review and will convene in six months to repeat the exercise.

The Sub-Committee reviewed the 35 appeal decisions (listed in Appendix 2) which have been issued since 1 January 2018 and noted that that 80% of appeals have been won which maintains an exceptionally good appeal performance.

The Sub-Committee reviewed the overturned decisions in the last 12 months. These comprised one refusal and one deferral and are included in Appendix 3.

Recommendation

For information only

Contact Officer:

Dave Mansfield

Title:

Chief Planner

Contact Details:

Tel: 020 8227 3999E-mail: [email protected]

Planning Committee Performance Review Sub Committee

1.1 Part 2 Chapter 9 of the Council Constitution sets out the scheme of delegation for the Planning Committee. Paragraph 2.1 (ix) explains that one of the functions of the Board is to appoint a Performance Review Sub Committee consisting of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Board and three other Members of the Board to be appointed at the first meeting in the municipal year, to consider and report back to the Planning Committee on a bi-annual basis in respect of:

a random sample of up to 20 delegated decisions on a range of applications and examine and evaluate between 5 and 10 of them to assess whether relevant planning policies and criteria were applied in each case;

mailto:[email protected]

planning appeal performance; and scrutiny of overturned decisions.

1.2 The Performance Review Sub-Committee met on 21 February 2019 and selected six delegated decisions, made since 2018. Appendix 1 shows the results of the evaluation. The Sub-Committee was satisfied with the results of the review and will convene in six months to repeat the exercise.

1.3 The Sub-Committee reviewed the 35 appeal decisions made from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018 and noted that that 80% of appeals have been won which maintains an exceptionally good appeal performance. All the appeals are listed in Appendix 2.

1.4 The Sub-Committee reviewed the one overturned decision and one deferred decision in the last 12 months. It was noted that the overturned decision had been the subject of a recent appeal decision in which the development was allowed.

Appendix 1 Delegated decisions selected by the Sub-Committee for review

Ref Number

Planning Application Reference

Decision Address Description

1 18/00117/CDN Permitted Barking Abbey Comprehensive School Annexe,Longbridge Road,Barking

Application for approval of details reserved by condition 23 (Secure by Design) in respect of planning permission 17/01464/REG3

Delegation was appropriate

Yes The application related to the submission of details pursuant to a condition imposed on a planning permission for a new teaching block and kitchen/dining area. Delegation met the criteria in Part 2, Chapter 9 of the Constitution.

Appropriate issues were

identified

Yes The application related to ‘secure by design’ matters and the advice of the Metropolitan Police’s Designing Out Crime Officer (DOCO) was sought. The DOCO was satisfied with the details submitted.

The application met the

appropriate deadline

No The decision was delayed due to a request for further information from the applicant and an issue with the recording of the payment of the application fee.

Ref Number Planning Application Reference


2 18/00399/FUL Refused 100 Third Avenue, Dagenham

Demolition of garages in rear garden and erection of two bedroom bungalow


Yes The application related to minor development which did not accord with Local Plan policy. Delegation for refusal met the criteria in Part 2, Chapter 9 of the Constitution.


identified

Yes The application was refused on the grounds that the bungalow was out of character with the area, the garden space was inadequate, the outlook poor and the car parking space inappropriately sited.



Yes The 8 week determination period was extended by 1 day in agreement with the applicant.

Ref Number

Planning Application Reference


3 18/01050/ADV Permitted Public footway at junction of Harrow Road andRipple RoadBarking

Display of an internally illuminated digital LED screen to both sides of freestanding 'InLink' equipment


Yes The application related to a grant of advertisement consent. Delegation met the criteria in Part 2, Chapter 9 of the Constitution.


identified

Yes The advertisement was not considered to have an adverse affect on the amenity of the area or public safety.



Yes The application was determined within the 8 week statutory period.



4 18/01629/FUL Permitted 60 Warrington Road, Dagenham

Erection of two storey side and rear extension and conversion of house to two flats


Yes The application related to minor development which was in accordance with Local Plan policy. Delegation met the criteria in Part 2, Chapter 9 of the Constitution.


identified

Yes Relevant policies in respect of design, housing standards and car parking addressed.



No The decision was delayed due to a request for amended drawings from the applicant.



5 18/00241/PRIOR6 Prior Approval Not Required

23 Kings Avenue, Chadwell Heath

Application for prior approval of proposed single storey rear extension (depth: 6.0 metres; height to eaves: 3.0 metres and maximum height: 3.0 metres)


Yes The application was for ‘prior approval’ of a larger household extension. As no objections were received from neighbours the proposal was deemed to be ‘permitted development’ for which no assessment was required.


identified

N/A



Yes This type of Prior Approval application has a strict 42 day deadline which must be met.



6 18/00806/PRIOR6 Prior Approval Not Required

13 Surrey Road, Dagenham



Yes The application was for ‘prior approval’ of a larger household extension. As no objections were received from neighbours the proposal was deemed to be ‘permitted development’ for which no assessment was required.


identified

N/A


Yes This type of Prior Approval application has a strict 42 day deadline which must be met.


Appendix 2 Appeals determined 2018

Total (Planning Appeals)

Appeals Dismissed

Appeals Allowed

Success Rate

Total (Enforcement Appeals)

Appeals Dismissed

Success Rate

35 28 7 80% 9 7 78%

Dismissed or allowed

Date Address Description Reason(s) for refusal Conclusion

1 Dismissed 16.1.18 106 Manor Road, Dagenham

Application for a certificate of lawfulness for an existing use: Use of outbuilding as independent dwelling

The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probability that the outbuilding has been continuously used as an independent dwelling for more than four years prior to the date of service of an enforcement notice against the use dated 28 July 2014 and is therefore not immune from enforcement action in accordance with Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

The change of use had taken place within 4 years of the date of service of an enforcement notice.

2 Dismissed 26.1.18 10 Herbert Gardens, Chadwell Heath

Erection of a single storey rear extension and loft conversion involving the construction of a rear dormer window and a hip to gable roof extension and external insulation and rendering

The proposed rear dormer window and gable roof by reason of their design, scale and form would fail to be subordinate to the existing host property and constitute unsympathetic, disproportionate and discordant additions to the detriment of the character and visual appearance of the host terrace and the street scene contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document, 2011 and the Supplementary Planning Document: 'Residential Extensions and Alterations', (2012).

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the proposed dwelling and its surroundings.

3 Dismissed 19.2.18 15 Rosslyn Avenue, Dagenham

Demolition of garage and erection of part single/part two storey side/rear extension to provide new dwelling (retrospective)

The new dwellling does not meet minimum internal standards including lack of gross internal floor space (70m² required), built-in storage provision (2.0m² required), provision of a double bedroom where a dwelling comprises two or more bedspaces and insufficient floor area and width of single bedroom (7.5m²/2.15m required) and as such the dwelling is a

The design of the extension would be unsympathetic and the proposed unit would be cramped and lacking in facilities (including a kitchen!).

substandard unit of accommodation detrimental to the living standards and amenities enjoyed by its occupiers, contrary to policy 3.5 of the London Plan (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standards (March 2015).

The outdoor amenity area shared by the occupants of the original and new dwellings would result in a loss of privacy to ground floor rooms and would therefore be unlikely to be well used and the overall size is insufficient. The development therefore fails to make adequate provision for external amenity space contrary to Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (March 2016) and policies BP5 and BP8 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011)

The proposed first floor side extension would significantly reduce the width of an important gap within the street scene which provides relief from the built up nature

of the street, would fail to maintain the character of the local area and would be harmful to the street scene contrary to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (March 2011) and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (February 2012).

4 Dismissed 23.2.18 33 Temple Avenue

Erection of two storey 2 bedroom end of terrace house

The proposed development does not comply with policy 3.5 of the London Plan (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standards (March 2015) in that the Gross Internal Floor Area is below that required for a two-storey 2 bedroom 3 person dwelling and no storage space has been identified and therefore the new dwelling would not provide satisfactory living conditions.

The proposed development fails to provide adequate amenity space for the proposed and existing dwellings to the detriment of

The size of the new dwelling would be too small, the garden inadequate and there would be an adverse impact on highway conditions.

the amenity of future occupiers contrary to Policy BP5 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011).

The proposed development would result in an increase in on-street parking demand within an area of poor public transport accessibility detrimental to highway safety and contrary to Policies BR9 and BR10 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011).

5 Dismissed 20.4.18 36 Stratton Drive, Barking

Erection of two storey side and part single, part two storey rear extension

The proposed side extension would partially close off an important gap within the street scene which provides relief from the built up nature of the street and would fail to maintain the character of the area and be harmful to the street scene. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (March 2011) and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (February 2012).

The extension would unacceptably detract from the character and appearance of the area.

6 Dismissed 1.5.18 100 Sterry Road, Dagenham

Erection of two storey side extension, part single/part two storey rear extension, and loft conversion involving construction of gable end roof and rear dormer window

The proposed side extension would partly close off an important gap within the street scene and fail to maintain the spacious character of the Becontree Estate contrary to policies CP2 and CP3 of the Core Strategy DPD, policies BP2, BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD and the Supplementary Planning Document for Residential Extensions and Alterations.

The siting and scale of the rear extension would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers at No.102 Sterry Road by way of an unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight and have an overbearing effect contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD and the Supplementary Planning Document for Residential Extensions and Alterations.

The design of the proposed development would result in an uncharacteristic and

The proposal would undermine the distinctive spatial character of the area and would be poorly designed.

unduly dominant addition in the form of a large rear gable roof detrimental to the character and appearance of the original dwelling. The proposed parapet side wall would be detrimental to the appearance of the streetscene and the surrounding area contrary to Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy (July 2010) and Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011).

7 Dismissed 2.5.18 33 Braintree Road, Dagenham

Erection of two storey one bedroom house

The proposed development by virtue of its scale, siting and location would represent inappropriate development of a residential garden and significantly close the gap between numbers 31 and 33 Braintree Road and as such would materially reduce the open and spacious character of the side garden of the application property and of the area, contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

8 Dismissed 9.5.18 6 Ashton Gardens,

Application for prior approval of

The proposed rear extension would project beyond a side

The development is not permitted by the General Permitted Development

Chadwell Heath

proposed single storey rear extension (depth: 6.0 metres in total comprising 4.642 metres existing and 1.358 metres proposed; height to eaves: 3.0 metres and maximum height: 3.1 metres)

wall of the original house and form a side extension which is more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A1. (j), ( iii) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development )(England) Order 2015.

Order (GPDO).

9 Allowed 9.5.18 24 Mill Lane Erection of part single storey part two storey rear extension

The siting and size of the rear extension would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers at No.22 Mill Lane by way of an unacceptable overbearing effect and loss of outlook and daylight contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (March 2011) and the Supplementary Planning Document for Residential Extensions and Alterations (February 2012).

The proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of 22 Mill Lane with regard to outlook and daylight. It would satisfy Policy BP8 of the Barking and Dagenham Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) which aims for development to not lead to significant overlooking or overshadowing, DPD Policy BP11 which aims to maintain residential amenity, and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which seeks a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Whilst the proposal would conflict with the letter of some of the advice in the SPD, it would satisfy its aims.

10 Dismissed 9.1.18 122 Mill Lane, Chadwell Heath


The proposed rear extension would project beyond a side wall of the original house and form a side extension which is more than half the width of the original dwelling, consequently the proposal would not accord with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.1 (j) (iii) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

The development is not permitted by the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).

11 Dismissed 14.5.18 58 Salisbury Avenue, Barking

Application for prior approval of proposed single storey rear extension (depth: 6.0 metres; height to eaves: 2.85 metres and maximum height: 3.0 metres

The proposed rear extension would project beyond a side wall of the original house and form a side extension which is more than half the width of the original dwelling, consequently the proposal would not accord with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.1 (j) (iii) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

The development is not permitted by the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).

12 Allowed 10.5.18 2 First Avenue, Dagenham

Demolition of garage and erection of two storey extension

The proposed two storey extension together with the existing annexe, by virtue of its combined scale, form, massing and design, will be

The proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property or area. It would accord with Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies

incongruous in appearance, overbearing and unduly dominant in the street scene resulting in unacceptable visual harm, detrimental to the character of the existing site and surrounding area, contrary to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.

Development Plan Document 2011 (‘DPD’). Amongst other things and when taken as a whole, these require a high standard of inclusive design and that development protects the character and amenity of the area. The proposal would also provide for improved healthcare facilities and services in an established medical practice. This would also accord with Policy CC2 of the DPD, which supports proposals that retain or enhance existing community facilities.

13 Dismissed 11.6.18 44 Rugby Gardens, Dagenham

Erection of two bedroom house (chalet) in garden

The proposed chalet house would be out of scale and character with the surrounding development, with a cramped and awkward siting, that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the rear garden environment and street scene, and would create a narrow and oppresive approach to the front doors of the adjacent maisonettes and could create a precedent for future similar developments, contrary to policy CP3 of the Core Strategy, and policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD.

The proposed dwelling would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The area of the proposed rear garden to serve the proposed dwelling is inadequate to provide a good standard of accommodation in accordance with the requirements of policy BP6 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.

14 Dismissed 20.6.18 264 Rugby Road, Dagenham

Erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension in connection with the conversion of dwelling into 2 x two bedroom flats

The proposed development does not comply with policy 3.5 of the London Plan (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standards in that the gross floorspace for the proposed new dwellings is inadequate and provides insufficient space for daily living detrimental to the living standards and amenities enjoyed by future occupiers.

The proposed development fails to provide adequate functional and useable external amenity space for the proposed first floor flat to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers contrary to Policy BP5 of the Borough Wide Development Policies

The proposal would not provide appropriate external amenity space for future occupiers.

DPD (March 2011).

15 Dismissed 25.6.18 36 Stratton Drive, Barking

Erection of part single/part two storey side and rear extension

The proposed side extension would partially close off an important gap within the street scene which provides relief from the built up nature of the street and would fail to maintain the character of the area and be harmful to the street scene. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (March 2011) and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (February 2012).

The proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of this part of Stratton Drive due to its effect on the visual gap between the 2 terraces.

16 Dismissed 25.6.18 67 Oulton Crescent, Barking

Erection of two storey side and rear extension

The proposed side extension would completely close off an important gap within the street scene which provides relief from the built up nature of the street and would fail to maintain the character of the area and be harmful to the street scene. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011), and the

The proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the house and of this part of Oulton Crescent. It would also unacceptably harm living conditions at the neighbouring house due to the impact on its outlook.

Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (February 2012).

The proposed two storey rear extension, in view of its size and siting, would appear overbearing and result in a loss of outlook to occupiers of the neighbouring property at No. 65 Oulton Crescent. The impact on the amenity of this property would be contrary to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011).

17 Dismissed 25.6.18 98 Westrow Drive, Barking

Erection of two storey side/rear extension and single storey rear extension

The proposed two storey side extension would partially close off an important gap within the street scene which provides relief from the built up nature of the street and would be harmful to the street scene. The proposed gable roof would be incongruous with neighbouring houses and out of keeping in the street scene contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011), and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning

The proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the house and of this part of Westrow Drive.

Document (February 2012).

18 Allowed 29.6.18 The Bull Inn, Rainham Road South, Dagenham

Retention of single storey side extension

The proposed development, by reason of its siting and design, appears out of character with the application property and fails to protect the character and amenity of the local area contrary to policy CP3 of the Core Strategy and Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011).

Overall, the extension does not look out of place in the varied and commercial setting and therefore does not harm the character and appearance of the area.

19 Dismissed 3.7.18 50 Sandown Avenue, Dagenham

Demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey, two bedroom detached house

The proposed development by virtue of its design, scale and siting, would represent a cramped and incongruous form of development and significantly close the gap between numbers 50 and 52 Sandown Avenue and as such would materially reduce the open and spacious character of the side garden of the application property and of the area, contrary to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.

The proposed dwelling would not provide adequate floor area for a double/twin

The proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area.

bedroom (minimum 11.5m2 required) and no in-built storage provision has been provided (minimum 2.0m2 required) and as such the development would have a sub-optimal internal layout detrimental to the living standards and amenities enjoyed by future occupants of the dwelling and as such would be contrary to Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (March 2016).

The application has not demonstrated that access to both the proposed off-street car parking spaces can be adequately and safely provided and as such the proposal would result in potentially hazardous manouevres to the detriment of pedestrian and vehicular safety, contrary to Policy BR10 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.

20 Dismissed 18.7.18 19 Rowdowns Road, Dagenham

Alterations to external appearance in connection with subdivision to

The proposed development would result in the loss of a family sized house that would exacerbate a shortage of such accommodation within

The proposed development would not preserve or increase the stock of family sized housing in the Borough.

provide one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom houses

the Borough contrary to policy BC4 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.

21 Dismissed 1.8.18 21 Hunters Hall Road, Dagenham

Erection of single storey front, side and rear extension

The proposed development would result in an unduly dominant, disproportionate and poorly detailed addition which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, street scene and the Becontree Estate and reduce the openness of the corner plot. The proposal would be contrary to Policies CP2 of the Core Strategy (July 2010) and Policies BP2, BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011).

The proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

22 Dismissed 15.8.18 1 North Road, Chadwell Heath

Erection of two storey side/rear extension to provide new dwelling, and erection of part single/part two storey rear extension to existing dwelling

The proposed development would result in an uncharacteristic and unduly dominant addition which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene and reduce the openness of the corner plot. Additionally, the front gable design and poorly sited first floor front window would be unsympathetic to the


symmetrical apperance of the host pair of semi-detached houses. These aspects would be contrary to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011).

The proposed development, by reason of the under-provision of private external amenity space for the proposed dwelling, would result in a lack of outdoor garden space detrimental to the living standards and amenities enjoyed by future occupiers of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy BP5 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD 2011.

23 Allowed 15.8.18 45 Leys Avenue, Dagenham

Erection of part single/part two storey side extension and single storey rear extension

The proposed two storey side extension, by reason of its siting and excessive scale, would result in a significant loss to the spaciousness of a prominent corner plot harmful to the character of the local area and contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (March 2011) and

The proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host building or to its surroundings. Hence, it would not be in conflict with national policies or the Development Plan, in principle, and it is acceptable in planning terms.

the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (February 2012).

24 Dismissed 15.8.18 117 Tallow Close, Dagenham

Conversion of garage and erection of single storey side and rear extension

The proposed rear extension with a depth of between 4.6 metres and 5.0 metres adjacent to the boundary with No. 118 Tallow Close would have an overbearing impact on the outlook from neighbouring houses, result in a loss of daylight and cause overshadowing to the rear garden of No. 118 harmful to residential amenity and contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Residential Extensions and Alterations.

The submitted drawings contain discrepancies and are inconsistent with one another and therefore prevents the Local Planning Authority from making a full determination until accurate information can be provided.

The proposal would have an unacceptable and overbearing impact on the neighbouring garden.

25 Dismissed 15.8.18 1070 Green Lane, Dagenham

Conversion of single storey side extension to form one bedroom self-contained flat

The proposed development fails to provide sufficiently useable or functional external amenity space for the proposed new dwelling and would not maintain adequate space for the existing dwelling to the detriment of the amenity of existing and future occupiers contrary to Policy BP5 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011).

The proposal would unacceptably fail to provide adequate living conditions for existing or future residents.

26 Dismissed 15.8.18 714-720 Becontree Avenue, Dagenham

Change of use of ground floor from D1 (training centre) use to A1 (retail)/A3 (restaurant/café) use; conversion of the upper floors from D1 use to C3 (dwellings) use to provide 8 two bedroom flats; including first, second and third floor rear extensions, installation of front rooflights, provision of a new residential

The proposed second and third floor rear extension, by reason of its excessive size, siting and flat roof design, would appear unsympathetic to the character of the existing building and local area and result in harm to the visual rhythm of the existing roofscape and the removal of characterful dormers and chimneys in the roof slope, contrary to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (March 2011).

The gross internal area of Flat 7 is insufficient resulting in a substandard unit of accommodation detrimental


entrance on Green Lane and associated car and cycle parking

to the living standards and amenities enjoyed by its occupiers, contrary to Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standards (March 2015).

27 Allowed 24.8.18 24 Foxlands Road, Dagenham


The proposed extension would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers at No. 22 Foxlands Road by virtue of its siting on the boundary and its excessive depth which would result in a loss of light and outlook contrary to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Polices DPD and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD.

The proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of adjacent occupants.

28 Allowed 24.8.18 40 Somerby Road, Barking

Erection of first floor rear extension

The proposed first floor rear extension, due to its scale and siting, is contrary to paragraph 5.3.3(b) of the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) because it would project beyond a 45 degree angle taken from the nearest corner

The only (neighbouring) window that would potentially be affected in terms of outlook would be the adjacent ground floor window as the first floor window is obscure glazed. As the extension would be oriented to the east/north-east of that window it would have little effect on levels of sunlight and daylight to the neighbour. Any effect on sunlight would be for a

of the adjoining building at 38 Somerby Road. The extension would be overbearing and significantly reduce outlook from number 38, detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupants of the neighbouring property and contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (March 2011).

limited amount of time in early morning. The canopy attached to the rear of the adjoining property would limit visibility of the extension from the rear window. Irrespective of this, because the extension would be to one side it would have only a limited effect on outlook. This, together with the limited effect on sunlight and daylight, would not amount to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the adjoining occupant.

29 Dismissed 30.8.18 2 Melford Avenue, Barking

Application for a certificate of lawfulness for an existing development: Loft conversion involving construction of gable end roof, rear dormer windows and front rooflights

The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the rear dormer window existed before the works carried out under planning ref.14/01170/FUL and is therefore not immune from enforcement action in accordance with Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The relative paucity of evidence, and the lack of clarity inherent in it, is such that it falls short of demonstrating that the works in question constitute permitted development. In the apparent absence of any proper authorisation for development in question, it is unlawful.

30 Dismissed 2.10.18 103 Fanshawe Avenue, Barking

Change of use from single dwellinghouse to house in multiple occupation (HMO) to accommodate

Appeal against non-determination.

The proposal results in the loss of family housing contrary to Policy BC4 of the BWDPD which amongst other matters seeks to preserve the stock of family housing in the Borough.

up to 6 people (retrospective)

31 Dismissed 8.10.18 205 Oxlow Lane, Dagenham

Change of use of ground floor shop from retail (Use Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Use Class A5) and erection of associated extraction flue to rear

The proposed change of use would increase the amount of Class A5 hot food takeaways above the maximum 5% limit of the total measured frontage of the neighbourhood centre. This is contrary to Implementation Point 2 of the Saturation Point Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and would be likely to have a detrimental impact upon the vitality and viability of the neighbourhood centre and health and well being of residents of the Borough, contrary to policies Policies CE1 and CM5 of the Core Strategy DPD, Policy BC10 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD, and Policies 3.2D and 4.8 of the London Plan.

The change of use further extends the reach and availability of takeaway food in the NC (neighbourhood centre) frontage beyond the recommended maximum of 5%. In the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I conclude that it thus unacceptably fails to promote the health and well-being of residents in the local community. The development therefore conflicts with Policy CE1 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Core Strategy (CS), insofar as it seeks to meet the needs of existing communities and provide them with social and economic benefits. It also fails to accord with DPD Policy BC10, which relates to the heath impacts of development. 10. In addition, the development is at odds with the Policy 3.2D of the London Plan, which seeks to improve health and address health inequalities, and with the aims of the SPD.

32 Dismissed 5.11.18 19 Ashbrook Road

Construction of a bungalow within rear garden

Appeal against non-determination.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, which would place it in clear conflict with the development plan. It would conflict too with the environmental dimension of sustainable development set out in paragraph 8 of the Framework.

33 Dismissed 22.11.18 97 Church Elm Lane, Dagenham

Retention of loft conversion involving construction of gable end roof, rear dormer window and installation of front rooflight

The gable end roof design, by reason of its design and bulk, coupled with its proximity to the eastern site boundary, has an overbearing impact on the outlook and amenities of neighbouring occupiers at No.s 9 and 10 Crane Close contrary to policy BP8 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011) and the Supplementary Planning Document for Residential Extensions and Alterations (February 2012).

The proposed gable end roof has resulted in the creation of an imposing flank wall elevation creating a significant bulk which coupled with the proximity to the site boundary results in an overbearing impact on the occupants of Nos 9 and 10 Crane Close. It makes their rear gardens less pleasant places to use and has an unacceptably imposing impact on outlook from rear windows. For these reasons, I consider that the development has a significant material impact on the living conditions of these neighbours, which does not help create a positive sense of local identity.

34 Allowed 12.12.18 Spectrum Building, 22 Freshwater Road, Dagenham

Application for outline planning permission: Erection of eight storey side/rear extension to Spectrum Building to provide 16 flats (4 two bedroom and 12 one bedroom)

Insufficient clarity has been provided on the availability for rent of the existing unoccupied parking spaces on site. The development therefore fails to make adequate provision for car parking and would be likely to result in additional demand for on street parking in the locality which would be detrimental to highway safety and public amenity in an area with a high degree of parking stress contrary to policies BR9 and BR10 of the Borough Wide Development Policies DPD (March 2011).

Given the accessibility of its location and the availability of parking spaces surplus to the original conversion, the proposed development would provide sufficient off-street parking without having any adverse effect on highway safety and public amenity. There would be no conflict from the proposal with DPD policies BR9 and BR10.

35 Dismissed 21.12.18 86 Faircross Avenue, Barking

Conversion of existing dwelling into one 1-bedroom and one 2-bedroom self-contained flats and conversion of bed-sit in rear garden to one 1-bedroom self-contained flat

The proposed development would result in the loss of a family dwelling house to the detriment of the stock of family housing in the borough, contrary to Policy BC4 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (2011).

The proposed development, by reason of the intensification of the existing residential dwelling with conflicting uses between the individual flats and introduction of a new, separate, dwelling unit to the rear would lead to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to the detriment of the residential amenity of future occupiers, and neighbouring properties contrary to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (2011) and Policy 7.15 Reducing and Managing Noise, Improving and Enhancing the Acoustic Environment and Promoting Appropriate Soundscapes of the London Plan (2016).

The proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, having particular regard to noise and disturbance, external amenity space for the main building and internal space within the annex.

The development would be detrimental to the living standards and amenities of future inhabitants of these units by reason of the shortfall in external amenity space and the lack of privacy and functionality of what is provided. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BP5 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (2011) and policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments of the London Plan (2016).

The proposed conversion of the existing annexe into a new separate unit of accommodation, occupied independently of the main dwellinghouse, would provide a substandard unit of accommodation by reason of its size, in conflict with the Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standard (2015), Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (2016), Policies CP3 of the Core Strategy Document (2010) and Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide

Development Policies Development Plan Document (2011).

Appendix 3

Decisions by the Board/Committee contrary to officer recommendations 2018

26 applications considered 1 contrary to officer recommendation 1 deferral

Ref DCB Description Recommendation DCB Decision1 15.1.18 Change of use of shop

to car showroom - 445-447 Becontree Avenue, Dagenham

Approve subject to conditions Deferred for further information (no further information was submitted and the application was deemed to be withdrawn)

2 19.3.18 Application for outline planning permission: Erection of eight storey side/rear extension to Spectrum Building to provide 16 flats (4 two bedroom and 12 one bedroom) - Spectrum Building, 22 Freshwater Road, Dagenham

Approve subject to conditions Refused (see appeal No. 34 above)

planning committee 18 march 2019 report of the chief ... · planning appeal performance; and...

Documents