Agenda item

The Principal Development Management Officer (PDMO) introduced a report on an application from the City of London Corporation (COLC) seeking an outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) on the former Barking Power Station Site at Chequers Lane, Dagenham for the demolition of remaining buildings and structures; and development of a consolidated wholesale market (including market spaces, logistics, distribution, food preparation areas, storage and ancillary uses), together with associated circulation and service floorspace, parking and landscaping. The Committee also received a supplementary report linked to the application concerning a financial contribution from COLC towards the upgrading of the strategic transport network (A13), should the application be approved. 

 

In addition to internal and internal consultations, a total of 267 letters were sent on three separate dates to neighbouring properties together with the requisite site and press notices. A total of seven representations were received of which four objected, two supported and one was neutral to the proposed development. Officer comments on the responses to the consultation were contained in the planning assessment detailed in the report. In addition, one of the objectors submitted further written representations that were circulated prior to the meeting, the content of which was assessed by the PDMO and commented on verbally at the meeting.

 

The PDMO in summarising the key issues associated with the application stated that when considered in its entirety the proposed development was considered acceptable in land use terms. Through the construction and operational phases, it would create substantial employment and regenerative benefits to the borough including educational opportunities linked to the Council’s development aspirations for the Dagenham Dock area, all of which would be secured through a Section 106 agreement. Further contributions had been secured in relation to wider placemaking set out in a proposed masterplan including public realm enhancements and improvements to the local cycle network. 

 

It was acknowledged that the scheme would bring substantial vehicular traffic to the local network and along the A13, but that through discussions with Planning and Highways officers and with TfL and neighbouring businesses the PDMO was confident that an agreed package of transport improvements including a £2m financial contribution towards wider improvements to the A13 would mitigate against the negative traffic impacts. Likewise, although the proposed parking levels exceeded the standards set down in both the Local and London Plans policies, it was felt that on balance this was justified due to the unique use and the planned measures secured through the S106 obligations to encourage a reduction in parking over time.

 

Given the scale of the development strong and valid concerns had been expressed as to the impacts on existing businesses, although officers were confident these impacts would be suitably mitigated as far as possible at this stage through a combination of conditional measures similarly secured through the S106 agreement, Furthermore the submission of a Travel Plan and the appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator to engage with local stakeholders through an appointed Steering Group would promote wider sustainable travel benefits across the site as well as keeping local businesses informed and involved.

 

An Energy Strategy submitted with the application demonstrated that the proposals would sufficiently reduce carbon dioxide emissions with any off set to be secured through the S106 agreement. Finally, there were no adverse heritage impacts associated with the development. 

 

Officers concluded that when considered as a whole the proposed development accords with the statutory Development Plan, the London Plan and emerging Local Plan, and on the basis of all other material considerations outlined in the report, it was recommended that outline planning permission be granted.   

 

David Slater and Adam Bassant, representing Hovis, one of the objectors, spoke at the meeting. Whilst Hovis were not opposed to the markets development per say there were a number of transport related concerns which in summary were:

 

·  Given that the proposed site was 4 x larger than the existing three market site, the forecasted traffic volumes associated with the development were predicted to be less, with no explanation as to the lower forecast, which in Hovis opinion had been significantly underestimated. 

·  The pattern of traffic movements between the Hovis operations and that of the markets were similar with the majority between 12.30 and 5.30am. The planning application stated that there would be a 7am enforced closure of the markets to alleviate traffic congestion on the A13 during the morning rush hour. The traffic assessment had suggested that at the peak times there would be a vehicle movement in Chequers Lane every 5 seconds, making it difficult for lorries to exit the Hovis site onto Chequers Lane.

·  Despite the offer of modifications, the proposed junction design and signalling arrangements at Chequers Lane/Choats Road would not work for Hovis, as it would make it difficult for HGV’s to exit the site as well as representing a safety hazard for pedestrians and cyclists, there being no road safety audit in the outline application. Possible alternative traffic management solutions for the junction were outlined.

 

Concluding the objections Hovis representatives were strongly of the view that approving the application as presented and relying on finalising the details through reserved matters was not sufficient nor appropriate given the scale of the development, and its effects on the locality. They urged the Committee to defer consideration of the outline application to allow officers more time to scrutinise the traffic assumptions and subsequent mitigation arrangements, and for the development of a workable safe junction design that would enable Hovis to maintain access and thereby protect the long-term viability of their site.

 

The PDMO commented on the suggestion of a deferment and stated that this application had already been delayed for a number of months due to officer concerns regarding traffic modelling, transport and other matters, to a point where officers were now satisfied that the development as proposed had been appropriately mitigated against. He referenced in particular condition 21 of the conditions set out in Appendix 6 of the report concerning a scheme of highways works which included proposed works to the junction which formed part of the reserved matters, and which would require submission and approval by the local planning authority before the application could proceed.

 

He added that if the junction proposals did not work for Hovis it would not work for the market operators or any other businesses in the locality. This point was echoed by Members who whilst concerned to hear that Hovis did not think that there had been sufficient dialogue with officers, were hopeful and encouraged that as an outline application with matters reserved there would be workable solutions to the transport issues for all concerned.

 

Further questions were raised by Members and responded to by officers which in summary were:

 

·  The report referenced that the applicant was obligated through the Heads of Terms to work with the Council’s Enterprise and Employment team to encourage traders to support the creation of job opportunities for local residents and in doing so ensure that up to 80% of the net additional FTE jobs generated by the development would be secured by local residents, and that all vacancies would be advertised exclusively to local residents up to 10 days before being advertised more widely. How was that figure arrived at, and would it be possible to push for a longer period, notwithstanding employment rules etc?

 

The PDMO explained that this figure was a target rather than a requirement given that to start with as part of the relocation of the markets, the operators would want to transfer existing staff but that the Council would be confident through the end user obligations of securing additional employment opportunities for residents.  As for the 10-day period this was a standard lead in time proposed by the Council’s Enterprise and Employment team to enable them preparation time to encourage local take up of vacancies, albeit local residents would be free to apply beyond that time. 

 

·  Given the significant activity that this development would create in the area and its surrounds, what would be the Council’s aspirations for developing a night-time economy?

 

In response the PDMO stated that the development would generate significant associated regenerative benefits. He was aware that New Spitifields market had a number of ancillary business linked to its operations, and which may seek to relocate to the area in time. This would of course require the submission of separate planning applications, each of which would need to be considered on their own merits and seeing the likely transport requirements and implications of such activities, no further commitments were being given at this stage.

 

·  How is it envisaged that this development would work with the planned Freeport, designated in this area?

 

Whist the Freeport discussions and its parameters were at a very early stage it was imperative that this application linked to the wider development aspects of the area. COLC are committed to exploring the greater use of river freight and the Blue River Network to complement their activities and funding studies within the obligations in the application. 

 

In response the applicant (COLC) led by Catherine McGuinness, Policy Chair, commented that the Market Co-location Plan was large and complex. It aimed to deliver benefits for the markets as well as create significant regeneration opportunities for this part of East London including job opportunities and achieving carbon neutral targets. She recognised that the development would have effects for existing businesses but was committed to working with the likes of Hovis and others to resolve their issues and concerns.

 

Anne Dunne, Programme Director provided an overview of the application and the work undertaken to date. She acknowledged that the use would be very intensive but would bring significant benefits to the area. That said she too recognised the need to work closely with objectors to ensure the road network worked for all businesses in Dagenham Dock.

 

Jeremy Castle, planning consultant briefly addressed the objectors’ concerns explaining that due to site constraints it was not possible nor appropriate to compare the existing and proposed developments which had been designed to address the specific requirements of the traders. Another important factor to bear in mind was that the number of trips that would be generated by the markets were below the number modelled in the transport assessment and should that number rise to above 90% then further mitigation measures would be required. Finally, COLC were committed to a finding a solution to the junction that worked for everybody and which formed part of the reserved matters.

 

Members were excited about the development and the employment opportunities it would bring for the benefit of local residents. With careful planning it would improve the Goresbrook Interchange and address the public Art on that part of the A13. The design would be a landmark for the Borough. Given its strategic importance Members would like to see regular updates brought forward, and

 

Therefore, the Committee RESOLVED to:

 

1.  Agree the reasons for approval as set out in this report,

 

2.  Delegate authority to the Director of Inclusive Growth in consultation with Legal Services to grant outline planning permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) based on the Conditions listed at Appendix 6 and the Heads of Terms identified at Appendix 7 of the report,

 

3.  Agree that, if by 22 September 2021 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Director of Inclusive Growth be delegated authority to refuse outline planning permission or extend this timeframe to grant approval, and

 

4.  Delegate authority to the Director of Inclusive Growth to provide a reasoned conclusion and other information required by Regulation 29 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact) Regulations 2017 and to inform the public and the Secretary of State as required by Regulation 30 of those regulations, based on the evaluation and reasons as set out in this report.