Planning application · Havering
P1692.24.
Maylands Golf Club Colchester Road Romford RM3 0AZ
Full / Other Planning at Maylands Golf Club Colchester Road Romford RM3 0AZ, received 23 Dec 2024 — refused on 11 Apr 2025 (delegated, Habib Neshat).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
11 Apr 2025
16 wks
Decision time
8 wks over the 8-week target
7
Conditions
attached to the decision
10
Documents
10 linked
2
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?
To demolish existing stable blocks and erect new stables, sixteen containers, 30x16m menage and eleven parking spaces.
Reference
P1692.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM3 0AZ
Ward
Council
Received
23 Dec 2024
Validated
7 Feb 2025
Target date
11 Apr 2025
Decision date
11 Apr 2025
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse (Appealed) Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Reference
P1692.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM3 0AZ
Ward
Council
Received
23 Dec 2024
Validated
7 Feb 2025
Target date
11 Apr 2025
Decision date
11 Apr 2025
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 11 Apr 2025, delegated decision by Habib Neshat — 16 weeks from submission (8 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
23 Dec 2024
Application received
7 Feb 2025
Application validated
11 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
11 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Habib Neshat
23 Dec 2024
Application received
7 Feb 2025
Application validated
11 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
11 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Habib Neshat
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development comprising the erection of buildings, installation of shipping
containers, the formation of significant degree of hardstanding and car parking spaces would
result in development that is detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt, and would conflict
with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The proposal would constitute
inappropriate Green Belt development, and in the absence of very special circumstances that
clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness and
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P1692.24 - 11th April 2025 1 of 4
substantial harm, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the guidance contained in the
National Planning Policy Framework NPPF 2024 and policy G2 of the London Plan.
2
The proposed buildings and structures, in particular the proposed containers, would appear as
alien feature that together with the extensive hard standing and car parking spaces would
result in significant harm to the verdant and the rural character of the area, thereby having
adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore considered to
be contrary to Policies 26 and 27 of the Local Plan 2021, the Policy D4 of the London Plan and
the Policy advice in National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
3
The proposal would, by reason of noise and disturbance caused by coming and going on
vehicles on the access way in the early hours of morning or late in the evening be
unacceptably detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of nearby residents, contrary to policies
7 and 34 of Local Plan Policies.
4
Insufficient information has been provided to assess the impact of the proposal upon the free
flow of traffic and the safety of highways users. In particular there is no information with
respect to trip generation or highways assessment. In these regards the proposal are
considered contrary to policies T4 and T6 of London Plan and policy 24 of the Local plan and
the policy advice in National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
5
Insufficient ecological information is available for determination of this application. In particular
it would appear that that the existing stables contains features that are associated with
roosting bats and that these features are due to be lost through demolition, without any
mitigating and enhancing measures for bat protection, thereby potentially causing undue harm
to protected species contrary to policy 30 (Biodiversity and geodiversity) and the policy advice
in National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
1
The proposed development comprising the erection of buildings, installation of shipping
containers, the formation of significant degree of hardstanding and car parking spaces would
result in development that is detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt, and would conflict
with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The proposal would constitute
inappropriate Green Belt development, and in the absence of very special circumstances that
clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness and
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P1692.24 - 11th April 2025 1 of 4
substantial harm, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the guidance contained in the
National Planning Policy Framework NPPF 2024 and policy G2 of the London Plan.
2
The proposed buildings and structures, in particular the proposed containers, would appear as
alien feature that together with the extensive hard standing and car parking spaces would
result in significant harm to the verdant and the rural character of the area, thereby having
adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore considered to
be contrary to Policies 26 and 27 of the Local Plan 2021, the Policy D4 of the London Plan and
the Policy advice in National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
3
The proposal would, by reason of noise and disturbance caused by coming and going on
vehicles on the access way in the early hours of morning or late in the evening be
unacceptably detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of nearby residents, contrary to policies
7 and 34 of Local Plan Policies.
Show all 5 rows
4
Insufficient information has been provided to assess the impact of the proposal upon the free
flow of traffic and the safety of highways users. In particular there is no information with
respect to trip generation or highways assessment. In these regards the proposal are
considered contrary to policies T4 and T6 of London Plan and policy 24 of the Local plan and
the policy advice in National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
5
Insufficient ecological information is available for determination of this application. In particular
it would appear that that the existing stables contains features that are associated with
roosting bats and that these features are due to be lost through demolition, without any
mitigating and enhancing measures for bat protection, thereby potentially causing undue harm
to protected species contrary to policy 30 (Biodiversity and geodiversity) and the policy advice
in National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
Policies cited
G2NPPFLocal Plan 26Local Plan 27D4Local Plan 7Local Plan 34T4T6
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
2
Objections
2
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.