Development Intent
AtlasBarking and DagenhamPolicy
Planning Atlas›Barking And Dagenham›Policy
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Barking And Dagenham · Local Plan · Policy

Policy.

The policies that actually decide outcomes in Barking And Dagenham — how often each is cited in the officers' own reports, where it bites hardest, and who leans on it. The plan text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

1,887 citations1,275 reports parsedBarking And Dagenham Local Plan (a…
Barking And Dagenham · policy map
Where policy is quoted most — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~138
At a glance
1,887[1]
Total citations
across 1,275 officer reports
91%[1]
Citations on refusals
borough baseline — see the In refusals column
Barking And Dagenham L[1]
Development plan
most-cited framework in reports
—
CIL (residential)
schedule not yet sourced
—
5-year land supply
position statement not yet sourced
Citations by policy — what gets invoked 🔒click a policy — reshapes the map
DMD1 · Securing high-quality design
375
SP2 · Delivering a well-designed, high-quality and resilient built environment
309
SP4 · Delivering social and cultural infrastructure facilities
243
DMD6 · Advertisements and signage
201
DMD4 · Heritage assets and archaeological remains
116
SP3 · Total housing requirement
112
DMSI3 · Nuisance
96
DMT4 · Deliveries, servicing and construction
71
Full citation counts are subscriber dataSubscribe to see the counts →
What kind of ground gets cited[1]
Housing delivery9%
Design & heritage44%
Highways & transport23%
Sustainability2%
Other grounds23%

Grounds classified from each policy's own cited title. Click a slice — reshapes the map.

The policies that decide outcomes — Barking And Dagenham

Every plan policy recurring in Barking And Dagenham officer reports, ranked by how often it's cited. Click a policy for its full record — and the officer who leans on it most.

PolicyCitationsIn refusalsAppeal survivalCites it most
DMD1 — Securing high-quality design37598% · 1.1×83%subscriber data
The full policy roster and per-policy officer breakdown are subscriber data.Subscribe to see all policies →

Citation counts from Barking And Dagenham officer reports.[1] “In refusals” = share of a policy's citations that sit on refusals; × = that share against the borough average (needs 20+ citations). Appeal survival = of PINS appeal decisions citing the policy, the share dismissed (refusal held); a rate needs 5+ decisive appeals, fewer show the count. Methodology →

The borough framework

The development-plan documents Barking And Dagenham officers actually cite, counted across parsed reports. CIL and land-supply figures aren't sourced yet and are shown as pending, not estimated.

Most cited
Barking And Dagenham Local Plan (adopted)
1,887 report mentions
The hierarchy
National — NPPFpage pending
Strategic — London Planpage pending
Local — Barking And Dagenham plan →
What wins here — approval rate by application type[2]

Bar = volume · figure = approval rate, across Barking And Dagenham's substantive decisions.

Householder
67%
Prior approval
27%
Lawful development
86%
Conditions & amendments
85%
Full / major planning
57%
Listed building
95%
Grounds for refusal at committee[3]

Why the planning committee refuses applications, from 27 refusals in the loaded minutes. Committee refusals are relatively few — most decisions are settled by officers.

Policy Conflict
25
Land Use
12
Design Character
6
Amenity
3
Environmental
3
Heritage Conservation
3
Transport Highway
2
Overdevelopment
2
Policies cited on refusal — borough-wide[4]

The policies most often cited on Barking And Dagenham refusal notices — the official refusal side of the citation record above.

NPPF1,464×
7.1, 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan711×
BP8 and BP11 of the Local Development Framework630×
BP8 and BP11 of the LDF Borough Wide Development Plan542×
SP4, DM11 and DM16 of the Draft Local Plan408×
D4 of the London Plan408×
CP3 of the LDF Core Strategy309×
CP2 and CP3 of the Local Development Framework302×
D4 of the Draft London Plan255×
BP2, BP8 and BP11 of the Local Development Framework243×

1,056 high-confidence refusal notices parsed for Barking And Dagenham.

Sources & method
  1. [1]Policy citations, per-policy officer counts and ward citation counts — parsed from 2,698 published Barking And Dagenham officer reports (delegated and committee), joined to the canonical application record for wards. Approvals included — refusal notices alone only show the refusal side.
  2. [2]Approval rate by application type — Barking And Dagenham's substantive decision record. · methodology
  3. [3]Committee refusal grounds and committee-cited policies — published Barking And Dagenham planning-committee minutes. · committee record
  4. [4]Borough-wide refusal-notice policy citations — decision-notice parsing (high-confidence notices only).
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.