Planning application · Barking And Dagenham
26/00353/HSE.
1 Beamway, Dagenham, Barking And Dagenham, RM10 8XR
Householder at 1 Beamway, Dagenham, Barking And Dagenham, RM10 8XR, received 22 Mar 2026 — refused on 13 May 2026 (delegated, Ruby Stagles).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarking And Dagenham profile →
Refused
Outcome
13 May 2026
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 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 single storey front extension
Reference
26/00353/HSE
Type
Householder Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM10 8XR
Ward
Council
Received
22 Mar 2026
Validated
23 Mar 2026
Target date
18 May 2026
Decision date
13 May 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
26/00353/HSE
Type
Householder Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM10 8XR
Ward
Council
Received
22 Mar 2026
Validated
23 Mar 2026
Target date
18 May 2026
Decision date
13 May 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Barking And Dagenham portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 13 May 2026, delegated decision by Ruby Stagles — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
22 Mar 2026
Application received
23 Mar 2026
Application validated
18 May 2026
Statutory target date
13 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ruby Stagles
22 Mar 2026
Application received
23 Mar 2026
Application validated
18 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
13 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ruby Stagles
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its design, scale and siting, would result in a
disproportionate addition that would fail to appear subordinate to the host dwelling. The
development would exacerbate the already bulky and unbalanced appearance of the dwelling and
further imbalance the semi-detached pair. The proposal would cause harm to the character and
appearance of the host dwelling and wider street scene. As such, the proposal is contrary to:
Paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
(December, 2024)
Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (March, 2021)
Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s
Local Plan (September, 2024)
Residential Alterations and Extensions SPD (February, 2012)
The above policies can be viewed on the Council's website: www.lbbd.gov.uk/planning.
1
The proposed development, by reason of its design, scale and siting, would result in a
disproportionate addition that would fail to appear subordinate to the host dwelling. The
development would exacerbate the already bulky and unbalanced appearance of the dwelling and
further imbalance the semi-detached pair. The proposal would cause harm to the character and
appearance of the host dwelling and wider street scene. As such, the proposal is contrary to:
Paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
(December, 2024)
Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (March, 2021)
Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s
Local Plan (September, 2024)
Residential Alterations and Extensions SPD (February, 2012)
The above policies can be viewed on the Council's website: www.lbbd.gov.uk/planning.
Policies cited
National Planning Policy Framework 131National Planning Policy Framework 135D1D4SP2DMD1DMD5NPPF
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.