The Planning Committee for Barking and Dagenham Council was scheduled to meet on 8 July 2025 to discuss a reserved matters application for Barking Riverside, a planning application for Trinity School, and a response to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) on proposed changes to planning legislation.

Barking Riverside Ltd Reserved Matters Application

A reserved matters application from Barking Riverside Ltd concerning public open space, landscaping, and ecological enhancements adjacent to the River Thames was scheduled to be discussed. The application, numbered 25/00425/REM, pertains to Foreshore Park 0-1, a 3.65ha linear open space south of Barking Riverside, consisting mostly of coastal grassland, through which a public footpath, Footpath 47, runs. The report pack notes that the site also hosts two historic navigational beacons.

The proposal includes a riverside walkway, strategic landscape, ecological enhancements, flood defences, drainage, play provisions and utilities. It is divided into four key spaces:

• The Terrace: A central meeting and gathering space with a public square, benches, seating, and a lawn area.
• DC Link: A shared pedestrian and cycle route with informal play areas along the shore.
• The Bay: An east-west promenade with a social bench, play area, and grass lawn.
• The Coast and Lookout: A promenade with a shared pedestrian and cycle path, a meandering path through grassland habitat, and a lookout offering views of the river frontage.

Key changes from previous approvals include reuse of outfalls, an improved approach to ecology, enhancement of 'people spaces', and realignment of Footpath 47.

The report pack notes that eleven representations had been received concerning the application.

Trinity School Planning Application

The committee was scheduled to discuss a planning application, numbered 25/00810/FULL, concerning Trinity School, a special educational needs and disability (SEND) school on Heathway, Dagenham. The application, submitted by London Borough of Barking & Dagenham c/o Auburn Group Limited, requests:

• Demolition of The Heathway Centre building and two adjoining demountable buildings.
• Construction of a replacement specialist Living and Learning Centre.
• Construction of a ground floor extension to the existing/retained Staff Training Centre including recladding existing elevations.
• Creation of additional car parking.
• Construction of a secondary vehicle access onto the A1240 Heathway to provide a drop-off and pick-up facility.
• Associated hard and soft landscaping.

The report pack notes that the application is a new full application given the material changes made in comparison to the extant consent LBBD reference '24/01058/FULL'. Principally these changes relate to the Staff Training Centre (STC). Unlike the extant permission 24/01058/FULL which approved a complete new STC building, due to current funding constraints the existing STC building will be retained under this proposal with an additional modular extension to the north comprising a kitchen room and WCs to improve usability. Given this change the proposed landscaping is comparatively less extensive.

Response to MHCLG Consultation

The Planning Committee was scheduled to consider a proposed response to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) on its Planning Reform Working Paper concerning Planning Committees. The proposed changes to reform Planning Committees principally involve:

• National Scheme of Delegation with certain types of development being determined under delegated authority by officers
• Mandatory national training for committee members
• Control of committee size, type and composition

The council's proposed response includes agreement with the principle of a two-tier structure for the national scheme of delegation, and agreement that application types such as householder development, minor commercial development, and applications for reserved matter approvals should fall within Tier A. The council also agreed that there should be a mechanism to bring a Tier A application to committee in exceptional circumstances, and that the gateway test which requires agreement between the chief planner and the chair of the planning committee is suitable.

The council's proposed response also includes agreement that the regulations should set a maximum for planning committees of 11 members, and that the regulations should additionally set a minimum size requirement. The council also agreed that certification of planning committee members, and of other relevant decisions makers, should be administered at a national level.

Finally, the council's proposed response includes agreement that the thresholds for quality of decision making should be reconsidered, and that the current threshold of 10% for major and non-major applications should be lowered to 5% for both. The council disagreed with this proposal, stating that the threshold should be reconsidered as discussed above. This would require an entirely new threshold approach which is based more closely on national and regional PINS data.