Agenda item

The Development Management Officer (DMO), Be First Development Management Team introduced a report on an application seeking a planning permission for the redevelopment of the site at 34-42 East Street, Barking, to provide a 5-9 storey building comprising up to 65 residential units (Use Class C3) with retail units (Use Class E) at ground and part first floors, with associated landscaping and highway works. It was noted that the application was a resubmission of a previous application which was refused in February 2020 on the grounds set out in the report.

In addition to internal and external consultations, a total of 1537 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties together with the requisite statutory press notice. A total of five objections were received, two of which were detailed in previously circulated supplementary reports, which also included an additional consultation response from the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS), as well as additional submission documents presented by the applicant.

The full material planning considerations relating to the above were set out in the planning assessment detailed both in the committee report and the supplementary reports. This had resulted in an officer recommendation for refusal for reasons as detailed and presented at the meeting. This also included an officer assessment of the changes between the previously refused scheme and the current application.

In conclusion the officer reiterated that the current application related to a residential-led redevelopment of a key town centre site that was part of an emerging allocation in the Draft Local Plan (Regulation 19). The principle of development had been accepted and it was acknowledged that progress had been made since the refusal of planning application 19/00770/FUL, which had enabled the removal of five previous reasons for refusal. However, there remained a number of areas of concern that had not been resolved through the resubmission of the current application, and as such three reasons for refusal were retained.

Given the planning principle that each application should be considered on its merits and as there were currently no other plans for the site, clarification was sought as to the validity of citing the committee report which stated that the proposal was not making best use of land. The DMO confirmed that this was in specific reference to policies in the now adopted London Plan which required a holistic design led approach to schemes and that consequently the applicant had failed to demonstrate how this application would work/complement future adjacent developments as part of the emerging site allocation. 

One registered speaker opposing the application addressed the Committee. In summary their concerns focussed on the impact of the proposed development on their quality of life in their adjoining property, through a combination of a significant reduction in natural light and a loss of privacy. It would also in their opinion reduce the sunlight to the Town Square, a popular play space for families and young children.

In response to the officer assessment and reasons for refusal the applicant and their representatives outlined what they saw as the key benefits of the scheme. In summary these were the number of build to rent units being delivered including 30% of those deemed affordable based on the London Living Rent (LLR) which exceeded the Mayor of London threshold, the number of family sized units, a density aligned with the aspirations set out in the draft site allocation, the introduction of a large area of retail floor space, and a high quality build and design, complementing the surrounding local heritage assets.

They challenged the officer argument about the wider site allocation, which in their view being in draft form only should have little bearing on the decision- making process, especially seeing the emerging local plan had yet to be independently reviewed. Their assessment of the draft site allocation was that it was made up of a considerable number of leasehold and freehold interests, which could take many years to unify and therefore it was unreasonable to withhold a consent on this application at this time.

Furthermore, the applicant challenged the daylight and sunlight assessment, claiming that based on an independent analysis, any such refusal would run contrary to the Council’s ambitions for the number of homes to be proposed across the draft allocation in the emerging Local Plan, as well as failing reasonably to consider the dense urban context in which the site existed. They also suggested that given more time issues raised by officers regarding parking could be resolved.

In response to comments from the Chair the applicant referenced the CGI illustrations in the report to demonstrate that there will be no overshadowing of the Town Square as a consequence of the development, and that the design would replicate the scale of massing already in place on the other three sides of the area. Other issues raised by Members concerned the question of true affordability for local residents, the design of the buildings, and the detrimental effect on local heritage specifically to the adjoining former Magistrates Court, albeit less than significant. In those circumstances it was not considered that the application would provide significant regeneration benefits or public benefits to the extent that it would outweigh the harm of the development.

Therefore, the Committee RESOLVED:

To delegate authority to the Director of Inclusive Growth (or authorised Planning Officer) in consultation with the Head of Legal Services to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed development by virtue of its siting, location, and high density would be a stark, crude and isolated development that was piecemeal in nature and represented poor place-making which would unduly impact on the setting of the Grade II listed former Barking Magistrates Court, did not seek to preserve or enhance the character of the Abbey and Barking Town Centre Conservation Area and did not maximise opportunities within the key regeneration area of Barking Town Centre and as such would be contrary to policies CM1, CM2 and CP3 of the Core Strategy, policies BTC16 and BTC19 of the Barking Town Centre Area Action Plan, policy BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document, draft policies SPP1, SP2, DMD1, DMD2, DMD3, DMD4, DMD5 of the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan, London Plan policies D1, D3, D4, D8, D9, HC1, SD1 and the London Riverside Opportunity Area Planning Framework and the NPPF.

2. The proposed development would result in the loss of sunlight and daylight to neighbouring residential occupiers and in particular flats contained within the former Barking Magistrates Court and the Bath House buildings. The proposal was considered to impact on the living standards of the neighbouring residential occupiers and potential occupiers of the proposed development, contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document and the NPPF, and

3. Insufficient information had been submitted and the application had failed to demonstrate that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety particularly in respect of the location of the blue badge car parking spaces conflicting with access to the market, contrary to the NPPF.