Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasBarking And DagenhamAlibon ward26/00037/HSE
Planning application · Barking And Dagenham

26/00037/HSE.

81 Reede Road, Dagenham, Barking And Dagenham, RM10 8DT

Householder at 81 Reede Road, Dagenham, Barking And Dagenham, RM10 8DT, received 9 Jan 2026 — refused on 4 Mar 2026 (delegated, Charlie Gao).

Barking And DagenhamAlibonRM10 8DT26/00037/HSE
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarking And Dagenham profile →
Refused
Outcome
4 Mar 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
Conditions
not captured
6
Documents
6 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?

Construction of a two storey side extension and the construction of a single storey rear extension

Reference
26/00037/HSE
Type
Householder Planning Permission
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM10 8DT
Ward
Received
9 Jan 2026
Validated
14 Jan 2026
Target date
11 Mar 2026
Decision date
4 Mar 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Decision Issued
Reference
26/00037/HSE
Type
Householder Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM10 8DT
Ward
Received
9 Jan 2026
Validated
14 Jan 2026
Target date
11 Mar 2026
Decision date
4 Mar 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Decision Issued
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
Decision Notice
27 Feb 2026
Officer Report
27 Feb 2026
Existing and Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans and Exist
15 Jan 2026
Site Location Plan
12 Jan 2026
Block Plan
12 Jan 2026
Application Form Redacted
12 Jan 2026
Decision Notice
27 Feb 2026
Officer Report
27 Feb 2026
Existing and Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans and Exist
15 Jan 2026
Show all 6 rows
Site Location Plan
12 Jan 2026
Block Plan
12 Jan 2026
Application Form Redacted
12 Jan 2026

Documents open on the Barking And Dagenham portal. View the application page ↗

Decision

What happened?

Refused on 4 Mar 2026, delegated decision by Charlie Gao — 8 weeks from submission.

Timeline

Date
Event
9 Jan 2026
Application received
14 Jan 2026
Application validated
11 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
4 Mar 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Charlie Gao
9 Jan 2026
Application received
14 Jan 2026
Application validated
11 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
4 Mar 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Charlie Gao

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of siting, appearance, and excessive scale and bulk, would not respect the original dwelling and the semi-detached pair, and create an undesirable addition to the street scene, by protruding the building line on the western side of Rogers Road and compromising the openness of this prominent corner plot. When viewed from nearby public vantage points, it would also disrupt the symmetry shared between the western and eastern sides of Rogers Road. As a result, the proposal fails to respect or reflect the character of the surrounding area, and fails to preserve or enhance the local distinctiveness of the Becontree Estate, which is a non-designated heritage asset. The proposal is thus contrary to the following policies which seek to ensure that development is of a high quality, respectful to local character and appearance, and sympathetic to the historic character: - National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (December 2024); - Policies D4 & HC1 of the London Plan (March 2021); - Policies SPP6 & DMD1/4/5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan (September 2024); - The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (February 2012); and - The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Draft Becontree Estate SPD & Design Code (Consultation Ver., November 2025). The above policies can be viewed on the Council's website: www.lbbd.gov.uk/planning.
1
The proposed development, by reason of siting, appearance, and excessive scale and bulk, would not respect the original dwelling and the semi-detached pair, and create an undesirable addition to the street scene, by protruding the building line on the western side of Rogers Road and compromising the openness of this prominent corner plot. When viewed from nearby public vantage points, it would also disrupt the symmetry shared between the western and eastern sides of Rogers Road. As a result, the proposal fails to respect or reflect the character of the surrounding area, and fails to preserve or enhance the local distinctiveness of the Becontree Estate, which is a non-designated heritage asset. The proposal is thus contrary to the following policies which seek to ensure that development is of a high quality, respectful to local character and appearance, and sympathetic to the historic character: - National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (December 2024); - Policies D4 & HC1 of the London Plan (March 2021); - Policies SPP6 & DMD1/4/5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan (September 2024); - The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (February 2012); and - The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Draft Becontree Estate SPD & Design Code (Consultation Ver., November 2025). The above policies can be viewed on the Council's website: www.lbbd.gov.uk/planning.
Policies cited
D4HC1SPP6DMD1London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan 4London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan 5NPPF

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.