Agenda item

The Senior Principal Development Management Officer (SPDMO), Be First Development Management Team, introduced a report and presentation on the details of the following application from Countryside Partnerships Plc and L&Q for reservedmatters at the site of the Former Assembly Plant at Beam Park Development Site, Thames Road, Dagenham:

22/01048/OUTSRM –A stand-alone hybrid planning application (part retrospective, part full, part outline), facilitating remaster planning of that part of the previously consented Beam Park development falling within LBBD (previous scheme phases 2B to 8, LBBD reference 19/01241/OUT as amended), to include residential development to provide an uplift of 947 residential units to total 3,119 units (of which 50% would be affordable by unit); a primary school, children’s play space; 3,508sqm for commercial, community and leisure uses in buildings ranging from 3-16 storeys in height; an energy centre and associated  infrastructure; open space; public realm with hard and soft landscaping; flood compensation areas; car and cycle parking and highway works and associated engineering operations.

22/02077/S106 – A Deed of Variation to the legal agreement attached to planning permission (19/01241/OUT) to remove the obligations relating to land within LBBD further to stand-alone planning application 22/01048/OUTSRM.

The application, being an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) development, was accompanied by an Environmental Statement.    

Further to the publication of the agenda, a supplementary report was circulated and referenced in the presentation, which outlined a number of amendments. This included recommendation 2 as set out in the published report, as well as the proposed heads of terms in the Section 106 Legal Agreement. In addition, the rewording of paragraph 12.4 of the published report concerning health care facilities, which sought to address and satisfy comments raised by the NHS; and details of further consultation responses and other amendments, none of which materially altered the officer recommendations. 

In addition to internal and external consultations, a total of 912 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties together with the requisite statutory and press notices, to which one response was received, the material planning considerations of which was addressed in the planning assessment set out in the report.

Following  the officer presentation, several questions were asked by the Committee, and in response to these, assurances were provided in respect of the provision of adequate health care facilities both in the current and future phases of development, that the business case for a new station at Beam Park would not be harmed as a consequence of the application, and that the development would, as it stood, be adequately served by public transport provision, given that bus improvements and a contribution to upgrading Dagenham Dock Station would be secured through the application.

Regarding the Committee’s more general concern in relation to the procedural process taken in respect of the application, officers confirmed that the process was legally sound and would not prejudice the development within the London Borough of Havering, approved under the previous cross-boundary consent.

At that point, a representation was made by Mr Simon Thelwell, Head of Strategic Development Planning, representing the London Borough of Havering, who objected to the application for the following reasons:

-  The inadequacy of the transportation assessment and capacity of Dagenham Dock Station submitted as part of the application, which, in his opinion, had significantly underestimated the public transport demand as a result of phases A to D of the proposed development,

-  The planned Beam Park station, the delivery of which was seen as  its delivery seen as the catalyst for the wider development of the London Riverside Opportunity  Area and key strategic sites in Havering, was undermined as a result of the proposed approach to the Grampian condition and phasing, and

-  A legal and procedural matter of presenting an application for only part of the site, previously granted approval, given the previous applications had sought to address the whole development across the two Boroughs.

Andrew Taylor, Patel Taylor Architectural Consultants representing the applicant, provided an overview of the proposed development. He explained that the current hybrid application would bring forward the early delivery of 500 new residential units with a variety of designs for homes and community facilities, building on the original 2019 consent which planned to deliver over 3,000 units, 50% of which would be affordable with up to 25% family homes.

Alongside the residential development would be a new school, leisure facilities, a new central park with extensive north to south landscaped connections to the existing communities, linking through to Dagenham Dock Station. The new application involved significant improvements to the original plans and layouts, including over 58% open space on a large previously inaccessible brownfield site. He concluded his presentation that Beam Park was a truly transformational development.

Ms Hussain, Senior Development Manager, Countryside Partnership (with London & Quadrant) outlined Countryside’s background and experience over many years across London working with both housing associations and the GLA to deliver mixed tenure housing regeneration schemes. She stated that the Partnership had been involved in the Beam Park project since 2015 and were committed to delivering a sustainable mix use development on the site.

In response to the applicant presentation, several more questions were asked by the Committee, which included seeking an explanation as to the absence of any 3/4-bedroom family sized houses within the affordable element of the development in the application. The applicant responded that provision had been made for family sized apartments but acknowledged that the larger housing units with garden space were exclusively only available in the private tenure. This led to another question about the lack of car parking provision for those family sized apartments and how this would be addressed. It was confirmed that there was a car parking management plan in place which included a mechanism to prioritise the allocation of available car parking spaces for family sized flatted accommodation on a phase-by-phase basis.

Other points raised and responded to by the applicant concerned the rationale for parking provision across the development, proposals to reallocate the expected over provision of cycle spaces, the number of which were in line with London Plan requirements, and also the number and type of electric charging points.

The SPDMO concluded that the application would deliver the redevelopment of a key former industrial site which had been allocated in the Local Plan within a strategic growth area. The provision of 3,119 units, 1,534 of which would be affordable, would make a significant contribution towards the Borough’s housing targets, while improving housing affordability in the area.

The overall approach to scheme design was considered to be of a high quality and the extensive provision of green open space would help create a sense of identity to this new neighbourhood. The increased density in comparison to the previous consent was also considered to be acceptable and would optimise the site’s capacity for housing delivery.

The proposed non-residential uses would provide amenities and community facilities to the development and the wider area whilst creating activity at the site throughout the day. The provision of a three-form entry (3FE) primary school on the site was another key benefit along with a substantial contribution towards education that would help fund the acquisition of further educational sites nearby.

The transport impacts of the development had been thoroughly assessed and were considered to have been acceptably mitigated by conditions and s106 obligations. The nature of the site and its surrounding context were such that the potential amenity impacts upon neighbours was negligible, as reflected by the very low level of objection to the scheme.

Overall, the proposal was considered to conform to policies within the development plan, and the public benefits that would be provided were significant and would outweigh any potential harm that may be caused. The Council would continue to work closely with colleagues in the neighbouring Borough of Havering to put in place the necessary legal mechanisms to facilitate the proposals. Therefore, having regards to all the factors outlined in the report and presentations,

The Committee RESOLVED to:

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

2.  Delegate authority to the Director of Inclusive Growth in consultation with the Head of Legal Services to consider any representations from the Health and Safety Executive relating to fire safety, and subject to there being no substantive objections, to approve the application (22/01048/OUTSRM) subject to the completion of a legal agreement based on the conditions listed in Appendix 5 (as amended) and the heads of terms listed in Appendix 6 of the report (as amended), and

3.  Delegate authority to the Director of Inclusive Growth in consultation with the Head of Legal Services to determine the associated Deed of Variation application 22/02077/S106.