Evidence/London Small Sites/Barking and Dagenham

Barking and Dagenham

Small residential planning decisions from January 2023 onwards, coded from the council’s own register to the same method used in all 33 London planning authorities.

171 applications · 144 decided · 35% approved Data to Apr 2026 Release August 2026

Applications logged

171

Full, householder and minor resi since Mar 2023

Decided so far

144

50 approved, 94 refused, 7 withdrawn

Approval rate

35%

Under half of decided applications

Typical time to decide

8 weeks

Median determination time across all small sites

Barking and Dagenham, area by area

Colour shows how often applications get approved. Numbers show how many were decided. Hover or tap an area for detail.

Spotlight

Barking

Decisions

Approved

Refused

Approval rate

Hover or tap any tile to see that area’s detail.

Tile positions are schematic, not to geographic scale. Each hex represents one of Barking and Dagenham’s sub-areas as defined in the council’s own planning framework.

Chadwell Heath approves 47% of applications. Barking, closer to 8%. Same borough, same policy, 39 percentage points of difference.

Which kinds of schemes get approved?

Bar length shows how many of each type were decided. The split shows the share approved versus refused. Conversion is by far the most common route in Barking and Dagenham, but it's end-of-terrace that sees the highest approval rate.

Approved Refused Bar length = sample size (max n=65)

Conversion

20%n=65

Demolish & rebuild

46%n=28

End-of-terrace

67%n=15

Scheme types with fewer than 10 decisions in the window are not shown here.

Conversion, dividing one home into flats

Demolish & rebuild, existing building replaced with new homes

End-of-terrace, new infill at the end of a terraced row

Why applications fail in Barking and Dagenham

Of every hundred reasons cited in refused decisions in Barking and Dagenham, transport and parking accounts for the biggest slice at 18%.

Transport 18%

Space 16%

Neighbour 14%

Design 14%

Other 10%

Loss 9%

Insufficient 8%

Transport and parking, parking, highway safety, cycle storage 18

Space standards, unit and room sizes, ceiling heights, private outdoor space 16

Neighbour amenity, overlooking, loss of light, privacy, noise 14

Design quality, bulk, massing, appearance, materials 14

Other, mixed or uncategorised reasons 10

Loss of existing use, commercial, employment or community floorspace 9

Insufficient information, missing reports, surveys or assessments 8

Policy, land use, affordable housing, principle of development 7

Infrastructure, drainage, energy, biodiversity 2

Heritage, conservation areas, listed buildings 2

Read as: “Of every 100 reasons cited in a refusal, 18 relate to transport and parking.” A single refusal often names two or more reasons. Based on 191 reasons extracted from refused decision notices.

In Barking and Dagenham, parking and transport concerns account for more refusals than any other reason.

Is Barking and Dagenham getting busier?

Decisions per quarter have fallen since 2023, and approval rates have drifted upward over the same window.

Decisions per quarter

Approval rate (%)

Hover any bar or dot for exact quarterly values. The most recent quarter may be partial while pending decisions work through.

Interrogate the data yourself

Every figure on this page comes from Barking and Dagenham's own planning decisions. We publish the underlying data so you can check it, replicate our findings, or use it in your own tools. Verify against the council's planning portal before relying on any record, and tell us if you spot a problem.

Download the data (Excel) CSV

Decided small-site applications, 1 to 9 units. Planning-decision layer only: Energy Performance Certificate, Land Registry and case-officer fields are held back. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: Planning London Datahub, Greater London Authority. Method.

About these figures

The figures describe decided applications for one to nine homes. They show what has happened in Barking and Dagenham over the period covered; they do not predict the outcome of an individual application, and no approval probability is offered for any site or scheme.

Sample sizes are shown with the findings. Where the available evidence is too thin for a result to carry meaning, it is withheld or marked accordingly.

Method Current release Compare other boroughs

Research using this evidence

Research Given what you received: the outcome differential — Barking and Dagenham’s mix-adjusted differential is −16.4 points.

All research →

Data sources & method

Applications. Sourced from the Greater London Authority (GLA) Planning Datahub and Barking and Dagenham Council’s online planning register. Covers full planning, householder, and minor residential applications of nine units or fewer decided in the window shown above.

Decisions and timing. Outcomes and determination times are taken from the council’s published decision notices.

Refusal reasons. Extracted from refused decision notices that were publicly available. Not every refusal has a readable notice, so totals count all refusals but the reason breakdown covers only those we could read.

Scheme classification. Site types (conversion, demolish & rebuild, extension, and so on) are coded from application descriptions and drawings. Areas are mapped from postcodes and ward names using the council’s own sub-area definitions.

Update frequency. Refreshed quarterly. Next refresh: October 2026.

Nothing here is planning advice. Outcomes are historical and do not predict individual cases. Approval rates vary with site specifics, policy context, and case officer. See our Terms of Use for full details on how this data is compiled and the limits of its use.