Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasHaveringHeaton wardP1282.24
Planning application · Havering

P1282.24.

11 Yelverton Close Romford RM3 8HG

Full / Other Planning at 11 Yelverton Close Romford RM3 8HG, received 23 Sep 2024 — refused on 23 Dec 2024 (delegated, Kara Johnston).

HaveringHeatonRM3 8HGP1282.24
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
23 Dec 2024
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
5
Conditions
attached to the decision
10
Documents
10 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 single dwelling into 2 flats with additional entrance to side, single storey rear extension and timber fence

Reference
P1282.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM3 8HG
Ward
Council
Received
23 Sep 2024
Validated
28 Oct 2024
Target date
23 Dec 2024
Decision date
23 Dec 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Reference
P1282.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM3 8HG
Ward
Council
Received
23 Sep 2024
Validated
28 Oct 2024
Target date
23 Dec 2024
Decision date
23 Dec 2024
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse Conditions/Reasons
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
Decision Notice
23 Dec 2024
Decision Notice
23 Dec 2024
Supporting Document
29 Oct 2024
Drawing
29 Oct 2024
Supporting Document
29 Oct 2024
Supporting Document
29 Oct 2024
Drawing
24 Sept 2024
Drawing
24 Sept 2024
Supporting Document
24 Sept 2024
Application Form
24 Sept 2024
Decision Notice
23 Dec 2024
Decision Notice
23 Dec 2024
Supporting Document
29 Oct 2024
Show all 10 rows
Drawing
29 Oct 2024
Supporting Document
29 Oct 2024
Supporting Document
29 Oct 2024
Drawing
24 Sept 2024
Drawing
24 Sept 2024
Supporting Document
24 Sept 2024
Application Form
24 Sept 2024

Documents open on the Havering portal. View the application page ↗

Decision

What happened?

Refused on 23 Dec 2024, delegated decision by Kara Johnston — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).

Timeline

Date
Event
23 Sep 2024
Application received
28 Oct 2024
Application validated
23 Dec 2024
Statutory target date
23 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Kara Johnston
23 Sep 2024
Application received
28 Oct 2024
Application validated
23 Dec 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
23 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Kara Johnston

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The original dwelling proposed to be subdivided does not measure more than 120sq.m and would result in the loss of a family unit, without the provision of a three bedroom unit. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be in conflict with Criteria ii. and iii. of Policy 9 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2035 and would therefore not be acceptable in principle.
2
The proposed development would fail to provide adequate internal floor space and high quality external amenity space that is not significantly overlooked for future occupants, in conflict with the indoor space standards outlined in Policy D6, including Criteria 1 and 2, of the 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.
3
The proposed room layout of the upper floor flat would conflict with the use of rooms on the upper floor of the dwelling at no.12, resulting in potential noise and disturbance to the existing occupiers to the detriment of their enjoyment of their dwelling contrary to Policies 7 and 9 of the Local Plan. HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P1282.24 - 23rd December 2024 1 of 3
4
The site has a PTAL rating of 1b which requires 0.5 parking spaces for a 1-bedroom dwelling. Given the proposal involves the conversion of a 2-bedroom dwelling into two self-contained 1- bedroom flats without providing any parking spaces, it is considered that the proposal cannot demonstrate that adequate provision for parking can be provided against Policy T6 of the London Plan 2021.
1
The original dwelling proposed to be subdivided does not measure more than 120sq.m and would result in the loss of a family unit, without the provision of a three bedroom unit. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be in conflict with Criteria ii. and iii. of Policy 9 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2035 and would therefore not be acceptable in principle.
2
The proposed development would fail to provide adequate internal floor space and high quality external amenity space that is not significantly overlooked for future occupants, in conflict with the indoor space standards outlined in Policy D6, including Criteria 1 and 2, of the 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.
3
The proposed room layout of the upper floor flat would conflict with the use of rooms on the upper floor of the dwelling at no.12, resulting in potential noise and disturbance to the existing occupiers to the detriment of their enjoyment of their dwelling contrary to Policies 7 and 9 of the Local Plan. HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P1282.24 - 23rd December 2024 1 of 3
Show all 4 rows
4
The site has a PTAL rating of 1b which requires 0.5 parking spaces for a 1-bedroom dwelling. Given the proposal involves the conversion of a 2-bedroom dwelling into two self-contained 1- bedroom flats without providing any parking spaces, it is considered that 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 9Local Plan 7Local Plan 9T6

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.