Planning application · Barking And Dagenham
26/00354/HSE.
5 East Park Close, Chadwell Heath, Romford, Barking And Dagenham, RM6 6XX
Householder at 5 East Park Close, Chadwell Heath, Romford, Barking And Dagenham, RM6 6XX, received 22 Mar 2026 — refused on 15 May 2026 (delegated, Kate Brooks).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarking And Dagenham profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 May 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
13
Documents
13 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 front porch, a two storey side extension and a part single storey part two storey rear extension
Reference
26/00354/HSE
Type
Householder Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM6 6XX
Ward
Council
Received
22 Mar 2026
Target date
17 May 2026
Decision date
15 May 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
26/00354/HSE
Type
Householder Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM6 6XX
Ward
Council
Received
22 Mar 2026
Target date
17 May 2026
Decision date
15 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 15 May 2026, delegated decision by Kate Brooks — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
22 Mar 2026
Application received
17 May 2026
Statutory target date
15 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Kate Brooks
22 Mar 2026
Application received
17 May 2026
Statutory target date
15 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Kate Brooks
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its excessive bulk, mass, scale, design and siting,
would result in a disproportionate and overly large extension that fails to respect the proportions
and character of the host dwelling. The combined porch, two storey side extension and part single,
part two storey rear extensions would cumulatively overwhelm the original property, creating a
footprint larger than the existing dwelling, amounting to a disproportionate overdevelopment of the
site. The depth, width and wraparound form of the rear extensions, would disrupt the established
pattern of modest rear projections, consistent building lines and clear visual breaks that
characterise the terrace row, resulting in an incongruous form of development. The proposal also
introduces a fragmented and visually discordant roofscape, including multiple differing roof forms
which fails to reflect the coherent pitched and hipped roof profiles typical of the surrounding area.
This would create a disjointed appearance when viewed from both the front and side elevations.
As a result, the development would appear incongruous and out of keeping with the established
character of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to:
- National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (MHCLG, December 2024)
- Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (March 2021)
- Policies SP2, DMD1, DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan
(September 2024)
- The Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (February 2012)
2
The proposed development, by reason of the depth, height and siting of the ground and first
floor rear extensions would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight, increased overshadowing a
loss of outlook and an overbearing sense of enclosure to No. 4 East Park Close. The first floor rear
extension would further add to the massing resulting in a development that appears unduly
dominant when viewed from No. 4. The proposal therefore fails to safeguard the amenity of
neighbouring occupiers. This impact would be unacceptable and thus is contrary to:
- National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (MHCLG, December 2024)
- Part D of policy D6 of the London Plan (March 2021)
- Policies DMD1 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan (September 2024)
The above policies can be viewed on the Council's website: www.lbbd.gov.uk/planning.
1
The proposed development, by reason of its excessive bulk, mass, scale, design and siting,
would result in a disproportionate and overly large extension that fails to respect the proportions
and character of the host dwelling. The combined porch, two storey side extension and part single,
part two storey rear extensions would cumulatively overwhelm the original property, creating a
footprint larger than the existing dwelling, amounting to a disproportionate overdevelopment of the
site. The depth, width and wraparound form of the rear extensions, would disrupt the established
pattern of modest rear projections, consistent building lines and clear visual breaks that
characterise the terrace row, resulting in an incongruous form of development. The proposal also
introduces a fragmented and visually discordant roofscape, including multiple differing roof forms
which fails to reflect the coherent pitched and hipped roof profiles typical of the surrounding area.
This would create a disjointed appearance when viewed from both the front and side elevations.
As a result, the development would appear incongruous and out of keeping with the established
character of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to:
- National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (MHCLG, December 2024)
- Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (March 2021)
- Policies SP2, DMD1, DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan
(September 2024)
- The Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (February 2012)
2
The proposed development, by reason of the depth, height and siting of the ground and first
floor rear extensions would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight, increased overshadowing a
loss of outlook and an overbearing sense of enclosure to No. 4 East Park Close. The first floor rear
extension would further add to the massing resulting in a development that appears unduly
dominant when viewed from No. 4. The proposal therefore fails to safeguard the amenity of
neighbouring occupiers. This impact would be unacceptable and thus is contrary to:
- National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (MHCLG, December 2024)
- Part D of policy D6 of the London Plan (March 2021)
- Policies DMD1 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan (September 2024)
The above policies can be viewed on the Council's website: www.lbbd.gov.uk/planning.
Policies cited
D1D4SP2DMD1DMD5NPPFD6
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.