Planning application · Havering
P0998.24.
53 Balgores Lane Romford RM2 5JU
Full / Other Planning at 53 Balgores Lane Romford RM2 5JU, received 15 Jul 2024 — refused on 21 Oct 2024 (delegated, Marnie Smith).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
21 Oct 2024
14 wks
Decision time
6 wks over the 8-week target
2
Conditions
attached to the decision
9
Documents
9 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?
Single storey rear extension and replacement UPVC windows
Reference
P0998.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
15 Jul 2024
Validated
27 Aug 2024
Target date
22 Oct 2024
Decision date
21 Oct 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Premises record
Council register
Reference
P0998.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
15 Jul 2024
Validated
27 Aug 2024
Target date
22 Oct 2024
Decision date
21 Oct 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Havering portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 21 Oct 2024, delegated decision by Marnie Smith — 14 weeks from submission (6 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
15 Jul 2024
Application received
27 Aug 2024
Application validated
22 Oct 2024
Statutory target date
21 Oct 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Marnie Smith
15 Jul 2024
Application received
27 Aug 2024
Application validated
22 Oct 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
21 Oct 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Marnie Smith
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal would, by reason of the materials, bulk and mass, be visually intrusive and
harmful to the character and appearance of this heritage asset as well as the street and
garden scene generally and would fail to preserve or enhance the Gidea Park Conservation
Area contrary to Policies 26 and 28 of the adopted Havering Local Plan and the Heritage
Supplementary Planning Document and the NPPF. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is relevant. Regarding the NPPF, a low level of
less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area is envisaged. The rear
proposed extension and roof changes would adversely affect the architectural interest of a
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P0998.24 - 21st October 2024 1 of 4
non-designated heritage asset, which makes the application subject to Paragraph 209 of the
NPPF.
1
The proposal would, by reason of the materials, bulk and mass, be visually intrusive and
harmful to the character and appearance of this heritage asset as well as the street and
garden scene generally and would fail to preserve or enhance the Gidea Park Conservation
Area contrary to Policies 26 and 28 of the adopted Havering Local Plan and the Heritage
Supplementary Planning Document and the NPPF. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is relevant. Regarding the NPPF, a low level of
less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area is envisaged. The rear
proposed extension and roof changes would adversely affect the architectural interest of a
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P0998.24 - 21st October 2024 1 of 4
non-designated heritage asset, which makes the application subject to Paragraph 209 of the
NPPF.
Policies cited
Havering Local Plan 26Havering Local Plan 28NPPF
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.