Planning application · Havering
P0140.24.
10 The Drive Harold Wood Romford RM3 0DU
Full / Other Planning at 10 The Drive Harold Wood Romford RM3 0DU, received 30 Jan 2024 — refused on 25 Mar 2024 (delegated, Aidan Hughes).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
25 Mar 2024
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
3
Conditions
attached to the decision
7
Documents
7 linked
0
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?
Ground floor rear extension and part first floor rear extension
Reference
P0140.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM3 0DU
Ward
Council
Received
30 Jan 2024
Target date
26 Mar 2024
Decision date
25 Mar 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Reference
P0140.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM3 0DU
Ward
Council
Received
30 Jan 2024
Target date
26 Mar 2024
Decision date
25 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 25 Mar 2024, delegated decision by Aidan Hughes — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
30 Jan 2024
Application received
26 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
25 Mar 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Aidan Hughes
30 Jan 2024
Application received
26 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
25 Mar 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Aidan Hughes
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed first floor rear extension by reason of its excessive depth, scale, bulk, mass and
roof form would appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the rear
garden environment harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy 26 of
the Havering Local Plan and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary
Planning Document.
2
The proposed first floor rear extension would, by reason of its excessive depth, height and
position close to the boundaries of the site, be an intrusive and unneighbourly development as
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P0140.24 - 25th March 2024 1 of 4
well as having an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers at No.12 The Drive,
Harold Wood contrary to Policies 7 of the Havering Local Plan and the Residential Extensions
and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document.
1
The proposed first floor rear extension by reason of its excessive depth, scale, bulk, mass and
roof form would appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the rear
garden environment harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy 26 of
the Havering Local Plan and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary
Planning Document.
2
The proposed first floor rear extension would, by reason of its excessive depth, height and
position close to the boundaries of the site, be an intrusive and unneighbourly development as
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P0140.24 - 25th March 2024 1 of 4
well as having an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers at No.12 The Drive,
Harold Wood contrary to Policies 7 of the Havering Local Plan and the Residential Extensions
and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document.
Policies cited
Havering Local Plan 26Havering Local Plan 7
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
Objections
0
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.