Agenda item

The Principal Development Management Officer (PDMO), Be First Development Management Team, introduced a report on an application from the East African Education Foundation for a permission for a change of use from Residential to a Community Centre to include Worship (F.1(a), F.1(f) and F.2(b)) at 949 Green Lane, Dagenham RM8 1DJ. By way of background the application had followed two previously refused applications principally because of a failure to provide adequate parking and transport capacity plans, and which the current application had addressed. 

In addition to internal and external consultations, a total of 47 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties together with the requisite statutory site notice. 7 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.

A representation was made at the meeting by Mr Mark Small, Paster of the neighbouring Green Lane Christian Fellowship. At the outset he stated that he did not question the sincerity of the applicant but was concerned as to the feasibility of the plans. In summary he objected to the application for the following reasons:

·  Parking. The current property being residential had parking suited to its needs with provision for four cars at most. The proposed development did not have the capacity to build a car park. The plans had proposed a single car space, with another designated for a ‘drop off point only’ with the other spaces converting into cycle stands and for the provision of a disabled access ramp. The adjoining Fellowship had its own car park, and the concern was that its use would become a source of contention with the applicant. 

·  Traffic safety. Green Lane was a main road with a significant traffic flow. The area also contained a local school and therefore the change of use would generate more car movements creating hazards for pedestrians and pupils to negotiate.

·  Public safety. The property had no side access, and the plans did not appear to include emergency exits in the event of a fire at the main entrance, and

·  Community Use. The added benefits of the development to the local community were seriously questioned, given many of the services were already provided within the locality. The description in the application of ‘include worship’ was vague and open to interpretation, and consequently the impact on the lives of local residents were not clear. 

Dr Salim, representing the applicant addressed the Committee in response to the objections. He outlined the role of the Church and its objectives and activities in relation to specifically serving the needs of the local community highlighting a number of charitable and socially beneficial causes such as woman’s empowerment initiatives, problems for young people around knife crime, gang culture, addiction and bullying, as well as their work with the NHS and food banks, particularly during the pandemic.

He was of the view that the conditions imposed on the application would address the concerns raised by the objectors both during the consultation and raised at the meeting. In respect of the latter the Chair asked him to specifically address the points raised by Paster Short.

Dr Salim stated that most of the users were local and would attend either on foot or by cycle and therefore parking would not be a problem as it would only be required for those with a disability, who in the main would be dropped off.  He provided assurances that users of the Church would be advised not to park in the adjoining Christian Fellowship car park. On this point Members were advised by officers that any possible disputes that may arise in the future would be a civil matter and should be disregarded for the purposes of determining the application. 

Dr Salim stated that the development would include adequate fire safety measures including appropriate means of escape in the event of a fire. He concluded that should this application be approved; the organisation was willing to work in cooperation with their neighbours including the Christian Fellowship and the wider local community. Responding to a question from the Committee about the organisation Dr Salim explained that although they were currently based in Newham, they had undertaken local community activities, operating out of rented sites both in Longbridge Road and another near Upney Station. However, both sites were small, hence the need to locate to a permanent base in the Borough.

Whilst the objectives of the organisation as stated in the application were welcomed Members felt it was important not to dismiss the significant number of objections that had been received during the consultation, recognising the concerns of local residents about a reduction in their quality of life brought about by perceived noise, traffic and other nuisances. 

The Chair asked that should the application be approved what actions could the Council take if the imposed conditions were not met? Officers confirmed that failure to comply with the conditions, which would be secured through a legal agreement, could result in enforcement notice(s) being issued, with a maximum fine of up to £20k being levied. 

Officers concluded that based on the documents, drawings and evidence submitted it was clear that the proposed community centre would provide a dual purpose and offer a range of activities which would serve the local community, be fully accessible and be near to other local services. Similarly, based on the full list of members most users would be local to the application site, and consequently it was considered that the development would have minimal impact on the highway and parking amenity, seeing that most users would travel to and from the site by foot, bike or public transport. Whilst the proposal would result in more activity and noise and general disturbances than currently produced by the existing residential property, nevertheless, as the site was isolated from surrounding neighbouring residents, and given the opening hours of the development, the benefits arising from the scheme were considered to outweigh any significant harm to neighbouring amenity.

On balance therefore the proposal was considered acceptable and in keeping with the development policies.

Accordingly, the Committee RESOLVED to:

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

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.