Agenda item

The Principal Development Management Officer (PDMO), Be First Development Management Team, introduced a report on an application from the Livability and Kingsley Hall Church and Community Centre seeking a permission at Kingsley Hall, Porters Avenue, Dagenham RM9 5NB for the demolition of all buildings and the redevelopment of the site for 36 residential units (Class C3), comprising 3 x one bed units, 32 x two bed units and 1 x three bed unit in a part three and part four storey building, together with ancillary accommodation, landscaping, service infrastructure, car parking, means of access and other associated works.

In addition to internal and external consultations, a total of 722 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties together with the requisite statutory press and site notices. 3 responses were received objecting to the application, the full material planning considerations relating to which were addressed in the planning assessment set out in the report.

In the light of the officer presentation a comment was expressed as to the fact that there was no element of affordable housing provision within this application phase of development, which was seen as very disappointing given the financial pressures of sections of the local community, particular at this time of the pandemic. 

By way of background, it was explained by officers that this was not a standalone application and should be viewed in the context of the previous approval(s) granted by the Committee for the site as a whole. This included upgraded and new community facilities for a nursery and place of worship (phases 1A and 1B) together with this latest phase 2 providing the housing element to fund the development.

The previous application(s) had included provision to allow the applicant to offset the costs of the community facilities against the housing, which itself had been subject to an independent viability test that showed there was no scope to achieve any affordable housing on this site. 

One registered speaker opposing the application addressed the Committee. Aside of providing new dwellings to house families, they questioned as to how this scheme would enhance and enrich the community and local environment as a whole. In summary their concerns were:

-  Loss of privacy to surrounding local residents

-  Increased traffic

-  Parking problems

-  Noise and light pollution

They expressed doubt over the value of the public consultation exercise, claiming that the Planning Officers had failed to engage directly with those residents affected by the development. They were also critical of the application plan and associated studies, suggesting that the traffic study was years out of date and did not reflect the recent demography of the area, especially given the effects of the pandemic.

The applicant representative addressed the Committee in response to the objections. The scheme had been the subject of a continuous process of community consultation which had shaped the reconfiguration of the site. He emphasised the core values of Kingsley Hall which were to care for its neighbours and provide services to the most vulnerable members of the local community.

He explained that Kingsley Hall had secured significant external investment into the scheme including the GLA which had allowed the community aspects of the scheme to be enhanced. The design and realignment of the development was more joined up with the community facilities be brought to the front of the site with the housing element facing the existing residential roads to the rear. He was confident that the reconfiguration of the site would resolve a lot of the issues highlighted by the objector which was backed up by the officer assessment in the report concerning the minimal impact that the development would have on neighbouring amenity. 

In summary the officer concluded that the redevelopment of the site to provide a residential development was acceptable in principle and would contribute to the Borough’s housing stock through the provision of 36 high quality units which were compliant with relevant standards.

The scale, sitting and design of the development was considered appropriate to the site’s context and would result in a high-quality finish, whilst respecting the amenity of existing and future neighbouring occupiers. The development had adopted a sustainable approach to transport whilst ensuring an acceptable impact on local highways and infrastructure. The proposal was also considered acceptable in terms of sustainability and impact on air quality, with a financial contribution secured to mitigate any shortfall in carbon reduction.

Accordingly, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.  To agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report, 

2.  Delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Inclusive Growth in consultation with Legal Services to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) based on the Heads of Terms identified at Appendix 6 and the Conditions listed in Appendix 5 of the report, and

3.  That, if by 20 June 2022 the legal agreement had not been completed, the Strategic Director of Inclusive Growth be delegated authority to refuse planning permission or extend this timeframe to grant approval.