Planning application · Barking And Dagenham
20/00028/OUT.
Barking Park Hotel, 56 - 60 Tanner Street, Barking, Barking And Dagenham, IG11 8QJ
Full / Other Planning at Barking Park Hotel, 56 - 60 Tanner Street, Barking, Barking And Dagenham, IG11 8QJ, received 13 Jan 2020 — refused on 9 Apr 2020 (delegated, Catherine Tusien).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarking And Dagenham profile →
Refused
Outcome
9 Apr 2020
12 wks
Decision time
4 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
50
Documents
50 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Barking And Dagenham planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Demolition of the existing buildings onsite and redevelopment to provide a 4-6 storey, 139 room hotel/short term let rooms.
Reference
20/00028/OUT
Type
Outline Planning Permission (All Matters Reserved)
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
IG11 8QJ
Ward
Council
Received
13 Jan 2020
Validated
14 Jan 2020
Target date
13 Apr 2020
Decision date
9 Apr 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
20/00028/OUT
Type
Outline Planning Permission (All Matters Reserved)
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
IG11 8QJ
Ward
Council
Received
13 Jan 2020
Validated
14 Jan 2020
Target date
13 Apr 2020
Decision date
9 Apr 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Barking And Dagenham portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 9 Apr 2020, delegated decision by Catherine Tusien — 12 weeks from submission (4 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
13 Jan 2020
Application received
14 Jan 2020
Application validated
13 Apr 2020
Statutory target date
9 Apr 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Catherine Tusien
13 Jan 2020
Application received
14 Jan 2020
Application validated
13 Apr 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
9 Apr 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Catherine Tusien
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed scheme by virtue of its height, scale, bulk, massing and design is considered
to incongruous and overbearing in appearance representing poor architectural quality and a
substantial overdevelopment of the application site and has a poor contextual relationship
with neighbouring buildings and therefore is considered contrary to Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 of
the London Plan, Policies D1 and D2 of the Draft London Plan and Policy BP11 of the
Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.
2
The proposed development by virtue of it's close proximity to residential occupiers and in
particular the 2-storey dwellings to the north-east along Harpour Road, would result in the
overlooking and loss of privacy of neighbouring residential occupiers and in addition to this
the substantial expansion and overdevelopment of the application site would result in
additional undue noise and disturbance detrimental to the living standards and amenities
enjoying of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Policies 7.1 and 7.6 of the London Plan and
Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan
Document.
3
The submitted application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development will not
materially impact on daylight levels received to neighbouring occupier’s contrary to Policies
7.1 and 7.6 of the London Plan and Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide
Development Policies Development Plan Document.
4
The proposed development would result in a loss of amenity and character to the area
through increase levels of traffic, noise, generation of refuse and general disturbance to the
area contrary to policy BP8 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan
Document (March 2011).
5
The proposed development would result in the unjustifiable over provision of car parking for
the new hotel in an area with an excellent PTAL of 6a contrary to Policies BR9 and BR10 of
the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (March 2011) and
Policy T6 of the Draft London Plan.
6
The proposed development has not been accompanied by an Energy Strategy and has
therefore failed to demonstrate that the development will incorporates principles of
sustainable design and construction and as such is therefore contrary Policy 5.2 of the
London Plan and Policy SI2 of the Draft London Plan.
APPROACH TO DECISION-TAKING:
The council has adopted the approach detailed in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National
Planning Policy Framework in dealing with this application.
In dealing with this application, Barking and Dagenham Council has implemented the
requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Town and Country
Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 to work with
the applicant in a
1
The proposed scheme by virtue of its height, scale, bulk, massing and design is considered
to incongruous and overbearing in appearance representing poor architectural quality and a
substantial overdevelopment of the application site and has a poor contextual relationship
with neighbouring buildings and therefore is considered contrary to Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 of
the London Plan, Policies D1 and D2 of the Draft London Plan and Policy BP11 of the
Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document.
2
The proposed development by virtue of it's close proximity to residential occupiers and in
particular the 2-storey dwellings to the north-east along Harpour Road, would result in the
overlooking and loss of privacy of neighbouring residential occupiers and in addition to this
the substantial expansion and overdevelopment of the application site would result in
additional undue noise and disturbance detrimental to the living standards and amenities
enjoying of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Policies 7.1 and 7.6 of the London Plan and
Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan
Document.
3
The submitted application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development will not
materially impact on daylight levels received to neighbouring occupier’s contrary to Policies
7.1 and 7.6 of the London Plan and Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide
Development Policies Development Plan Document.
Show all 6 rows
4
The proposed development would result in a loss of amenity and character to the area
through increase levels of traffic, noise, generation of refuse and general disturbance to the
area contrary to policy BP8 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan
Document (March 2011).
5
The proposed development would result in the unjustifiable over provision of car parking for
the new hotel in an area with an excellent PTAL of 6a contrary to Policies BR9 and BR10 of
the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (March 2011) and
Policy T6 of the Draft London Plan.
6
The proposed development has not been accompanied by an Energy Strategy and has
therefore failed to demonstrate that the development will incorporates principles of
sustainable design and construction and as such is therefore contrary Policy 5.2 of the
London Plan and Policy SI2 of the Draft London Plan.
APPROACH TO DECISION-TAKING:
The council has adopted the approach detailed in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National
Planning Policy Framework in dealing with this application.
In dealing with this application, Barking and Dagenham Council has implemented the
requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Town and Country
Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 to work with
the applicant in a
Policies cited
London Plan 7.1London Plan 7.4London Plan 7.6D1D2BP11BP8BR9BR10T6London Plan 5.2SI2National Planning Policy Framework 186National Planning Policy Framework 187NPPF
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.