Town Planning Appeals PDF 33 KB

Title: Town Planning Appeals
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
4 February 2013
Report of the Development Management Manager, Regeneration Division
Open Report For Information
Wards Affected: Abbey, Alibon, Chadwell
Heath, Eastbrook, Longbridge,
Thames, Whalebone
Report Author: Dave Mansfield, Development
Management Manager
Key Decision: No
Tel: 020 8227 3999
E-mail: dave.mansfield@lbbd.gov.uk
Accountable Divisional Director: Jeremy Grint, Divisional Director of Regeneration
Accountable Director: Graham Farrant, Chief Executive
Summary:
This report advises Members of recent appeals that have been lodged, the outcomes of
decisions made and those that have been withdrawn.
Recommendation(s)
The Development Control Board is asked to note this report.
1. Appeals Lodged
1.1 The following appeals have been lodged:
a) Change of use to place of worship (use class order D1) - 24 - 26 Thames
Road, Barking (Ref: 11/00821/FUL)
Application approved subject to conditions at Development Control Board at 23 July
2012.
b) Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for an Existing Development:
Siting of mobile catering outlet on forecourt - Unit 6, Rippleside Commercial
Estate, Ripple Road, Barking
Application refused under delegated powers 26 September 2012.
c) Erection of 2 storey two-bedroom house and alterations to footway crossing -
465 Whalebone Lane North, Chadwell Heath (Ref: 12/00400/FUL)
Application refused under delegated powers 26 October 2012.
2. Appeals Determined
2.1 The following appeals have been determined by the Planning Inspectorate:

a) Erection of first floor extension above outbuilding in rear garden of children's
home to create 2 self-contained bedsits for young people leaving care and
administration office - 8 St Chads Road, Chadwell Heath (Ref: 11/00879/FUL)
Application refused under delegated powers 29 December 2011 for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed bedsits would provide a poor standard of accommodation due to the
lack of any external amenity space contrary to policy BP5 of the Borough Wide
Development Policies Development Plan Document.
2. The proposed development would result in a loss of outlook to the occupiers of Nos.
6 and 8 St. Chads Road and the building would have an overbearing impact on the
rear gardens of Nos. 6 and 8 St. Chads Road contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of
the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.
3. The proposed development would result in a loss of privacy to rooms within the rear
elevations of Nos. 6 and 8 St. Chads Road, and direct overlooking and a severe
loss of privacy to the rear gardens of Nos. 6 and 8 St. Chads Road, and a loss of
privacy to adjacent rear gardens, resulting from the use of the raised walkway
providing access to the office and bedsits contrary to policies BP8 and BP11 of the
Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.
Planning Inspectorate’s Decision: Appeal dismissed 2 January 2013 (see attached).
b) Demolition of existing medical centre and erection of 2 and 3 storey buildings
comprising 4 one-bedroom flats, 8 two-bedroom flats, 3 two-bedroom houses,
8 three-bedroom houses, 2 three bedroom flats and 1 four-bedroom house
with associated landscaping and parking - 132 Upney Lane, (The Upney Lane
Centre) Barking (Ref: 11/00476/FUL)
Application refused at Development Control Board at 30 April 2012 for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed development has been assessed to yield 18 school aged children
and does not make a sufficient financial contribution to mitigate the adverse impact
of these additional school places on local schools which have no surplus capacity
contrary to policy CC3 of the Core Strategy and the Community Infrastructure Levy
Regulations 2010 as amended.
2. The vehicular access to the site through Champness Road is inappropriate for a
scheme of this size and could result in unreasonable levels of noise and
disturbance to neighbouring residential occupiers contrary to policy BP8 of the
Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.
Planning Inspectorate’s Decision: Appeal allowed 3 January 2013 (see attached).
Application for an award of costs:
Planning Inspectorate’s Decision: Appeal allowed 3 January 2013 (see attached).
c) Erection of single storey rear extension to provide ‘hotel’ accommodation - 74
Longbridge Road, Barking

Enforcement appeal
Planning Inspectorate’s Decision: Appeal dismissed 31 December 2012 (see
attached).
d) Outline planning application: Erection of 2/3/4 storey building comprising 3
three-bedroom flats, 7 two-bedroom flats and 4 one-bedroom flats and
associated parking - Land Adjacent to 50 Blake Avenue, Barking (Ref:
11/00216/OUT).
Appeal against lack of determination of application within statutory timescale.
Planning Inspectorate’s Decision: Appeal allowed 9 January 2013 (see
attached).
e) Erection of two storey side and rear extensions - 61 and 63 Holgate Road,
Dagenham (Ref: 12/00565/FUL)
Application refused under delegated powers 2 August 2012 for the following reason:
The proposed development, by virtue of its form, scale and massing, would fail to
respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would generate
material levels of visual harm to the street scene contrary to policies BP8 and BP11
of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document and the
Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document.
Planning Inspectorate’s Decision: Appeal dismissed 18 January 2013 (see attached).
f) Use of first floor office as day nursery (Class D1) - 429 - 431 Rainham Road
South, Dagenham (Ref: 10/00548/FUL)
Application refused under delegated powers 29 March 2012 for the following
reasons:
1. The development has not demonstrated that the premises, which are located within
the Sterling Industrial Estate/Wantz Road Locally Significant Industrial Site, are no
longer viable for employment use and the development would reduce the stock of
premises available for employment generating purposes contrary to Policy CE3 of
the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.
2. The proposed development by virtue of the absence of adequate and safe vehicular
access arrangements to the site, off-street car parking provision and drop-off and
pick-up point(s) for the proposed use would be hazardous and could increase
parking pressure along an existing busy road and as such would be prejudicial to
pedestrian and vehicular safety, contrary to policies BR9 and BR10 of the Borough
Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.
3. The proposed day nursery, by virtue of its location above a car repair shop with
associatiated noise and fumes nuisance and the absence of outdoor play space, will
not provide a sustainable location for the nursery and fail to maintain and improve
community wellbeing detrimental to the amenities of potential users of the nursery
and is therefore contrary to Policy CC2 of the Core Strategy.
Planning Inspectorate’s Decision: Appeal dismissed 22 January 2013 (see attached).

3. Appeals Withdrawn
None.