Planning application · Havering
P0797.24.
W R Bird, 1 Station Parade Hornchurch RM12 5AB
Full / Other Planning at W R Bird, 1 Station Parade Hornchurch RM12 5AB, received 5 Jun 2024 — refused on 2 Aug 2024 (delegated, Jordan Campbell).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
2 Aug 2024
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
3
Conditions
attached to the decision
5
Documents
5 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?
Conversion of Barber shop to Cafe E(b) and erection of new glazed conservatory to front with a retractable awning.
Reference
P0797.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM12 5AB
Ward
Council
Received
5 Jun 2024
Validated
7 Jun 2024
Target date
2 Aug 2024
Decision date
2 Aug 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Reference
P0797.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM12 5AB
Ward
Council
Received
5 Jun 2024
Validated
7 Jun 2024
Target date
2 Aug 2024
Decision date
2 Aug 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Documents open on the Havering portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 2 Aug 2024, delegated decision by Jordan Campbell — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Jun 2024
Application received
7 Jun 2024
Application validated
2 Aug 2024
Statutory target date
2 Aug 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Jordan Campbell
5 Jun 2024
Application received
7 Jun 2024
Application validated
2 Aug 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
2 Aug 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Jordan Campbell
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed extension by virtue of its permanent siting, design, form, depth and location
would represent a wholly incongruous form of development that would fail to harmonise with its
surroundings and would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the
street scene, contrary to Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan.
2
In the absence of evidence to demonstrate otherwise, due to its open nature, the forecourt
seating area would result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P0797.24 - 2nd August 2024 1 of 3
residential occupiers in respect of noise, especially in the evening, contrary to Policy 7 of the
Havering Local Plan.
3
The proposed development would result in permanent blocking of the adopted highway,
resulting in obstruction to pedestrians and preventing the ongoing maintenance of the public
footway. In this respect the proposal is contrary to Policies 23 and 26 of the Havering Local
Plan.
1
The proposed extension by virtue of its permanent siting, design, form, depth and location
would represent a wholly incongruous form of development that would fail to harmonise with its
surroundings and would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the
street scene, contrary to Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan.
2
In the absence of evidence to demonstrate otherwise, due to its open nature, the forecourt
seating area would result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P0797.24 - 2nd August 2024 1 of 3
residential occupiers in respect of noise, especially in the evening, contrary to Policy 7 of the
Havering Local Plan.
3
The proposed development would result in permanent blocking of the adopted highway,
resulting in obstruction to pedestrians and preventing the ongoing maintenance of the public
footway. In this respect the proposal is contrary to Policies 23 and 26 of the Havering Local
Plan.
Policies cited
Havering Local Plan 26Havering Local Plan 7Havering Local Plan 23
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.