Development Intent
Planning AtlasBarking And DagenhamDMD1
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Barking And Dagenham · Local Plan · Policy

DMD1 — Securing high-quality design.

How Barking And Dagenham actually applies DMD1: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

DMD1 is a published Barking And Dagenham planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Barking And Dagenham Local Plan (adopted)

Barking And Dagenham · DMD1
Where DMD1 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~38
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
375
times cited
in parsed decision notices
83%
appeal survival
53 dismissed · 11 allowed at appeal
18 of 27
officer reach
67% of officers recorded in this period
Longbridge
top hotspot ward
38 citations
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue DMD1 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

DMD1 appears most often in Longbridge, Chadwell Heath, Whalebone. It appears across 18 of 27 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
2%
in approvals
9 citations
98%
in refusals
366 citations

This shows the decision reports in which DMD1 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why DMD1 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
83% survival
53 dismissed · 11 allowed64 PINS appeal decisions cite DMD1

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite DMD1. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing DMD1 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Barking And Dagenham
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Barking And Dagenham's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Barking And Dagenham decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.