Planning application · Havering
P0083.24.
22 Nelmes Crescent Hornchurch RM11 2QB
Full / Other Planning at 22 Nelmes Crescent Hornchurch RM11 2QB, received 16 Jan 2024 — refused on 12 Mar 2024 (delegated, Aidan Hughes).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
12 Mar 2024
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
3
Conditions
attached to the decision
6
Documents
6 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Havering 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?
Proposed front boundary treatments (Retrospective)
Reference
P0083.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM11 2QB
Ward
Council
Received
16 Jan 2024
Target date
12 Mar 2024
Decision date
12 Mar 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Reference
P0083.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM11 2QB
Ward
Council
Received
16 Jan 2024
Target date
12 Mar 2024
Decision date
12 Mar 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Havering portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 12 Mar 2024, delegated decision by Aidan Hughes — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Jan 2024
Application received
12 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
12 Mar 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Aidan Hughes
16 Jan 2024
Application received
12 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
12 Mar 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Aidan Hughes
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The exsiting boundary treatment, by reason of its excessive height, scale and poor design
would introduce a design element which is inconsistent with the established low rise form of
development to boundaries of properties in the street scene. This would add a design element
which is incongruous with other properties along Nelmes Crescent to the detriment of the
visual amenity of the locality contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan and the
Council's Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD.
2
The existing boundary treatment, by reason of its excessive height fails to provide adequate
levels of visibility for vehicles when they egress from the site which has created an unsafe
environment for pedestrians and other vehicles contrary to Policy 7 of the Local Plan.
1
The exsiting boundary treatment, by reason of its excessive height, scale and poor design
would introduce a design element which is inconsistent with the established low rise form of
development to boundaries of properties in the street scene. This would add a design element
which is incongruous with other properties along Nelmes Crescent to the detriment of the
visual amenity of the locality contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan and the
Council's Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD.
2
The existing boundary treatment, by reason of its excessive height fails to provide adequate
levels of visibility for vehicles when they egress from the site which has created an unsafe
environment for pedestrians and other vehicles contrary to Policy 7 of the Local Plan.
Policies cited
Havering Local Plan 7Havering Local Plan 26Local Plan 7
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.