Planning application · Havering
P1252.24.
Site to Rear of 2 and 2a Tennyson Road Romford RM3 7AD
Full / Other Planning at Site to Rear of 2 and 2a Tennyson Road Romford RM3 7AD, received 16 Sep 2024 — refused on 4 Dec 2024 (delegated, Kara Johnston).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
4 Dec 2024
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
5
Conditions
attached to the decision
12
Documents
12 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 conversion of detached garage into 1 bedroom dwelling for single occupancy with front extension, new pitch roof, off street parking and rear garden.
Reference
P1252.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM3 7AD
Ward
Council
Received
16 Sep 2024
Validated
18 Sep 2024
Target date
4 Dec 2024
Decision date
4 Dec 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse (Appealed) Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Reference
P1252.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM3 7AD
Ward
Council
Received
16 Sep 2024
Validated
18 Sep 2024
Target date
4 Dec 2024
Decision date
4 Dec 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse (Appealed) 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 4 Dec 2024, delegated decision by Kara Johnston — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Sep 2024
Application received
18 Sep 2024
Application validated
4 Dec 2024
Statutory target date
4 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Kara Johnston
16 Sep 2024
Application received
18 Sep 2024
Application validated
4 Dec 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
4 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Kara Johnston
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development would fail to provide adequate internal space for future occupants,
in conflict with the indoor space standards outlined in Policy D6, including Criteria 1, of the
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P1252.24 - 4th December 2024 1 of 4
London Plan 2021 and Policy 7 the Havering Local Plan 2016-2033, which would result in
substandard residential accommodation detrimental to the amenity of the future residents.
2
The proposed dwelling, through the site layout and plot coverage, would form an incongruous
and visually cramped form of development at odds with surrounding character and patterns of
development in an environment of more consistent plot sizes. It would result in a property
which would be at odds with this prevailing character. This out of character appearance would
also be emphasised by the relatively narrow width of the bungalow in combination with its
overall height and shape. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 10, 7 and 26
of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph135(a) of the NPPF which requires
fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing
or maintaining a strong sense of place.
3
The proposed rear garden area, by reason of its orientation, separation distance and
relationship with no.2 Tennyson Road, would experience direct and an unacceptable level of
overlooking from the donor dwelling, contrary to Policies 7, 10, 26 and 34 of the Havering
Local Plan 2016-2031, the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning
Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4
The proposed parking bay would not meet the required dimensions outlined within the parking
standards resulting in overhang to the public walkway. Therefore, the proposal cannot
demonstrate that adequate provision for parking can be provided against Policy T6 of the
London Plan 2021.
1
The proposed development would fail to provide adequate internal space for future occupants,
in conflict with the indoor space standards outlined in Policy D6, including Criteria 1, of the
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P1252.24 - 4th December 2024 1 of 4
London Plan 2021 and Policy 7 the Havering Local Plan 2016-2033, which would result in
substandard residential accommodation detrimental to the amenity of the future residents.
2
The proposed dwelling, through the site layout and plot coverage, would form an incongruous
and visually cramped form of development at odds with surrounding character and patterns of
development in an environment of more consistent plot sizes. It would result in a property
which would be at odds with this prevailing character. This out of character appearance would
also be emphasised by the relatively narrow width of the bungalow in combination with its
overall height and shape. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 10, 7 and 26
of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph135(a) of the NPPF which requires
fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing
or maintaining a strong sense of place.
3
The proposed rear garden area, by reason of its orientation, separation distance and
relationship with no.2 Tennyson Road, would experience direct and an unacceptable level of
overlooking from the donor dwelling, contrary to Policies 7, 10, 26 and 34 of the Havering
Local Plan 2016-2031, the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning
Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed parking bay would not meet the required dimensions outlined within the parking
standards resulting in overhang to the public walkway. Therefore, the proposal cannot
demonstrate that adequate provision for parking can be provided against Policy T6 of the
London Plan 2021.
Policies cited
Havering Local Plan 10Havering Local Plan 7Havering Local Plan 26NPPFHavering Local Plan 34T6
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.