Planning application · Havering
P0627.24.
32 Mcintosh Road Romford RM1 4JJ
Full / Other Planning at 32 Mcintosh Road Romford RM1 4JJ, received 3 May 2024 — refused on 31 Jul 2024 (delegated, Jordan Campbell).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
31 Jul 2024
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
4
Conditions
attached to the decision
8
Documents
8 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?
Change of use of existing C3-residential dwelling to a large HMO-8 person Sui-Generis together with provision of cycle and refuse storage
Reference
P0627.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM1 4JJ
Council
Received
3 May 2024
Validated
8 May 2024
Target date
31 Jul 2024
Decision date
31 Jul 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Reference
P0627.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM1 4JJ
Council
Received
3 May 2024
Validated
8 May 2024
Target date
31 Jul 2024
Decision date
31 Jul 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 31 Jul 2024, delegated decision by Jordan Campbell — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
3 May 2024
Application received
8 May 2024
Application validated
31 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
31 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Jordan Campbell
3 May 2024
Application received
8 May 2024
Application validated
31 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
31 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Jordan Campbell
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
By reason of the proposed scheme's gross internal floor space being substandard, below
132m2, the proposal is deemed unacceptable, and not to be in compliance with Policy D6 of
the London Plan 2021.
2
By reason of proposed scheme's internal bed space (Bedroom No.5) being substandard,
below 8.5m2, the proposal is deemed unacceptable, and not to be in compliance with East
London HMO guidance.
3
Whilst 3 on-site parking spaces are shown, the spaces cannot be independently accessed by
occupants of the house. As such, the proposal does not meet Havering's parking requirements
and will have an unacceptable impact on parking conditions and traffic congestion in the area.
The proposal therefore conflicts with policies 8 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan 2016, and
policies T5, T6, and T6.1 of the London Plan 2021.
4
The proposal would, by reason of the noise and disturbance induced through the
intensification of the site's residential use, result in undue harm to the amenity of the
surrounding residents. Thus, the proposal would therefore be
contrary to Havering Local Plan Policies 7 and 8, and to the objectives of the NPPF, and is
deemed unacceptable.
1
By reason of the proposed scheme's gross internal floor space being substandard, below
132m2, the proposal is deemed unacceptable, and not to be in compliance with Policy D6 of
the London Plan 2021.
2
By reason of proposed scheme's internal bed space (Bedroom No.5) being substandard,
below 8.5m2, the proposal is deemed unacceptable, and not to be in compliance with East
London HMO guidance.
3
Whilst 3 on-site parking spaces are shown, the spaces cannot be independently accessed by
occupants of the house. As such, the proposal does not meet Havering's parking requirements
and will have an unacceptable impact on parking conditions and traffic congestion in the area.
The proposal therefore conflicts with policies 8 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan 2016, and
policies T5, T6, and T6.1 of the London Plan 2021.
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposal would, by reason of the noise and disturbance induced through the
intensification of the site's residential use, result in undue harm to the amenity of the
surrounding residents. Thus, the proposal would therefore be
contrary to Havering Local Plan Policies 7 and 8, and to the objectives of the NPPF, and is
deemed unacceptable.
Policies cited
D6Havering Local Plan 8Havering Local Plan 24T6.1NPPF
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.