Planning application · Barking And Dagenham
26/00314/FULL.
Post Office, 279 Wood Lane, Dagenham, Barking And Dagenham, RM8 3NH
Full / Other Planning at Post Office, 279 Wood Lane, Dagenham, Barking And Dagenham, RM8 3NH, received 11 Mar 2026 — refused on 27 May 2026 (delegated, Bethany Robins).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarking And Dagenham profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 May 2026
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
17
Documents
17 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?
Change of use of the ground floor retail unit (Use Class E(A)) to a place of worship (Use Class F(1)) and community centre (Use Class F(2)) including the construction of a single storey rear extension
Reference
26/00314/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM8 3NH
Ward
Council
Received
11 Mar 2026
Target date
27 May 2026
Decision date
27 May 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
26/00314/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM8 3NH
Ward
Council
Received
11 Mar 2026
Target date
27 May 2026
Decision date
27 May 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
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 27 May 2026, delegated decision by Bethany Robins — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
11 Mar 2026
Application received
27 May 2026
Statutory target date
27 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Bethany Robins
11 Mar 2026
Application received
27 May 2026
Statutory target date
27 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Bethany Robins
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Principle of Development
The proposal would result in the loss of a retail unit within a designated neighbourhood centre,
impacting the vitality and function of this parade harmfully impacting on, convenience shopping
which meets the day‑to‑day needs of local residents. The proposed development is therefore
contrary to the following policies: ·
Policies E9, SD6, S1 of the London Plan (March 2021)
Policies DME3, DMS2, SP4 and SPDG1 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan
2037 (September 2024)
2
Crime and Safety
The proposed development would create conflict between users of the rear access, and the
movement of delivery and servicing vehicles, thus posing safety risks. Furthermore, the absence of
lighting, suitable condition and natural surveillance along this rear access would result in an
unacceptable access, providing an unsafe and illegible access route for users. The proposed
development is therefore considered to be contrary to the following policies:
Policy D11 of the London Plan (March 2021)
3
Impacts to Neighbouring Amenity
The proposed development would be unacceptable with regards to noise and disturbance to the
occupiers of neighbouring residential properties arising from both within the building and along the
rear access, due to the significant volume of worshippers coming and going simultaneously and
congregating at unsocial hours. This would give rise to noise at elevations and times when
neighbouring occupiers would not ordinarily experience such activity, resulting in undue harm to
the amenity of residents. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the following
policies:
Policy D14 of the London Plan (March 2021)
Policy DMSI3 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2037 (September 2024)
4
Sustainable Transport
The applicant has failed to demonstrate with robust evidence an accurate modal split and likely on-
street parking demand arising from the development. The proposed development is considered to
be unacceptable in terms of highway safety, given its location in an area with low access to public
transport and within a Controlled Parking Zone, where parking stress and pressures are already
high. The scheme would result in unacceptable and unsafe parking behaviour, and further reducing
on-street parking capacity for existing residents and users. As such, the proposal is considered to
be contrary to the following policies:
National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) ·
Policies T1, T2, T3, T4 and T6 of the London Plan (March 2021)
Policies DMT1, DMT2 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2037 (September
2024)
The above policies can be viewed on the Council's website: www.lbbd.gov.uk/planning.
Working with the applicant:
In dealing with this application, Be First, working in partnership with the London Borough of
Barking and Dagenham, 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
Principle of Development
The proposal would result in the loss of a retail unit within a designated neighbourhood centre,
impacting the vitality and function of this parade harmfully impacting on, convenience shopping
which meets the day‑to‑day needs of local residents. The proposed development is therefore
contrary to the following policies: ·
Policies E9, SD6, S1 of the London Plan (March 2021)
Policies DME3, DMS2, SP4 and SPDG1 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan
2037 (September 2024)
2
Crime and Safety
The proposed development would create conflict between users of the rear access, and the
movement of delivery and servicing vehicles, thus posing safety risks. Furthermore, the absence of
lighting, suitable condition and natural surveillance along this rear access would result in an
unacceptable access, providing an unsafe and illegible access route for users. The proposed
development is therefore considered to be contrary to the following policies:
Policy D11 of the London Plan (March 2021)
3
Impacts to Neighbouring Amenity
The proposed development would be unacceptable with regards to noise and disturbance to the
occupiers of neighbouring residential properties arising from both within the building and along the
rear access, due to the significant volume of worshippers coming and going simultaneously and
congregating at unsocial hours. This would give rise to noise at elevations and times when
neighbouring occupiers would not ordinarily experience such activity, resulting in undue harm to
the amenity of residents. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the following
policies:
Policy D14 of the London Plan (March 2021)
Policy DMSI3 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2037 (September 2024)
Show all 4 rows
4
Sustainable Transport
The applicant has failed to demonstrate with robust evidence an accurate modal split and likely on-
street parking demand arising from the development. The proposed development is considered to
be unacceptable in terms of highway safety, given its location in an area with low access to public
transport and within a Controlled Parking Zone, where parking stress and pressures are already
high. The scheme would result in unacceptable and unsafe parking behaviour, and further reducing
on-street parking capacity for existing residents and users. As such, the proposal is considered to
be contrary to the following policies:
National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) ·
Policies T1, T2, T3, T4 and T6 of the London Plan (March 2021)
Policies DMT1, DMT2 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2037 (September
2024)
The above policies can be viewed on the Council's website: www.lbbd.gov.uk/planning.
Working with the applicant:
In dealing with this application, Be First, working in partnership with the London Borough of
Barking and Dagenham, 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
E9SD6S1DME3DMS2SP4SPDG1D11D14DMSI3T1T2T3T4T6DMT1DMT2NPPF
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.