Planning application · Havering
P1698.24.
Havering Park Stables Bower Farm Road Romford RM4 1QR
Full / Other Planning at Havering Park Stables Bower Farm Road Romford RM4 1QR, received 24 Dec 2024 — refused on 13 Aug 2025 (delegated, Victoria Collins).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHavering profile →
Refused
Outcome
13 Aug 2025
33 wks
Decision time
25 wks over the 8-week target
10
Conditions
attached to the decision
53
Documents
53 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 existing building to form two residential dwellings (Class C3) and alterations to enlarge the retained residential dwelling (Class C3). Demolition of the remaining buildings and structures on the site and construction of 6 residential dwellings (Class C3) together with associated car p
Reference
P1698.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM4 1QR
Council
Received
24 Dec 2024
Validated
16 Jan 2025
Target date
13 Aug 2025
Decision date
13 Aug 2025
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refuse (Appealed) Conditions/Reasons
Council register
Reference
P1698.24
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
RM4 1QR
Council
Received
24 Dec 2024
Validated
16 Jan 2025
Target date
13 Aug 2025
Decision date
13 Aug 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 13 Aug 2025, delegated decision by Victoria Collins — 33 weeks from submission (25 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
24 Dec 2024
Application received
16 Jan 2025
Application validated
13 Aug 2025
Statutory target date
13 Aug 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Victoria Collins
24 Dec 2024
Application received
16 Jan 2025
Application validated
13 Aug 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
13 Aug 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Victoria Collins
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the proposed development would not align
fully with any of the exceptions set out in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the NPPF and would
constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposed development is
considered to result in substantial harm to the openness of the site by reason of layout and
overall height and siting of the proposed development and there are not demonstrated to be
any very special circumstances sufficient to justify the harm. The proposed development would
form a harmful urbanisation of the site which would have a material adverse impact on the
openness of the Green Belt in this location. In the absence of any Very Special Circumstances
which would outweigh the harm, by reason of inappropriateness and substantial harm to
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P1698.24 - 13th August 2025 2 of 5
openness, the proposed development is unacceptable in principle and in contrast to the
objectives of the NPPF and Policy G2 of the London Plan.
2
The proposals would, by reasons of the scale, massing, height, design, layout and loss of
original fabric of site, give rise to an unacceptable form of development, which also diminishes
the positive contribution the site currently makes to the significance of Havering-Atte-Bower
Conservation Area and adversely affect the rural character through an undue urbanising effect,
which would harm the character of the site and the significance of the Conservation Area and
would not preserve or enhance the special character of this part of the Conservation Area
contrary to Policies 26 and 28 of the Local Plan, Policy HC1 of the London Plan and the NPPF
2024.
3
In the absence of a satisfactory justification for the loss of the existing recreation facility or
demonstration of adequate replacement provision, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 18
of the Local Plan 2021.
4
The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal, having regard to the narrow road and
the poor visibility splays at the junction of Wellingtonia Avenue and Bower Farm Road, in
combination with the anticipated level of vehicle movements to and from the site, would not
result in conflict between those vehicles entering and leaving the site and other road users and
pedestrians, contrary to policies 23 and 24 of the Local Plan 2021.
5
Inadequate information has been provided within the arboricultural survey submitted with the
application to fully assess the impact on trees as a result of the development. In the absence
of definitive evidence of the impact of the development on tree numbers the development
would be materially harmful to the character and amenity of the site and surrounding area,
contrary to Policies 27 of the Local Plan and the NPPF 2024
6
Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application in order to fully assess
the likely impact of the proposed development on Reptiles, Great Crested Newts and
Badgers. Full survey reports should be provided prior to determination in order for there to be
certainty of likely impacts on protected species, and in the absence of such information the
proposal is contrary to Policy 30 of the Local Plan 2021.
7
The application fails to make appropriate provision for affordable housing or demonstrate no
provision is required and therefore is contrary to Policy 4 of the Local Plan 2021 and the
National Planning Policy Framework, which require appropriate mitigation to address
affordable housing needs.
8
Based on the details submitted with the application, it is unclear whether the proposal would
comply with its statutory duties and its biodiversity duties under s.4 NERC Act 2006 (as
amended), in the absence of such clarity the proposal is contrary to Policy 30 of the Local Plan
2021.
1
The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the proposed development would not align
fully with any of the exceptions set out in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the NPPF and would
constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposed development is
considered to result in substantial harm to the openness of the site by reason of layout and
overall height and siting of the proposed development and there are not demonstrated to be
any very special circumstances sufficient to justify the harm. The proposed development would
form a harmful urbanisation of the site which would have a material adverse impact on the
openness of the Green Belt in this location. In the absence of any Very Special Circumstances
which would outweigh the harm, by reason of inappropriateness and substantial harm to
HAVPDECR (ODB Jan 2022) P1698.24 - 13th August 2025 2 of 5
openness, the proposed development is unacceptable in principle and in contrast to the
objectives of the NPPF and Policy G2 of the London Plan.
2
The proposals would, by reasons of the scale, massing, height, design, layout and loss of
original fabric of site, give rise to an unacceptable form of development, which also diminishes
the positive contribution the site currently makes to the significance of Havering-Atte-Bower
Conservation Area and adversely affect the rural character through an undue urbanising effect,
which would harm the character of the site and the significance of the Conservation Area and
would not preserve or enhance the special character of this part of the Conservation Area
contrary to Policies 26 and 28 of the Local Plan, Policy HC1 of the London Plan and the NPPF
2024.
3
In the absence of a satisfactory justification for the loss of the existing recreation facility or
demonstration of adequate replacement provision, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 18
of the Local Plan 2021.
Show all 8 rows
4
The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal, having regard to the narrow road and
the poor visibility splays at the junction of Wellingtonia Avenue and Bower Farm Road, in
combination with the anticipated level of vehicle movements to and from the site, would not
result in conflict between those vehicles entering and leaving the site and other road users and
pedestrians, contrary to policies 23 and 24 of the Local Plan 2021.
5
Inadequate information has been provided within the arboricultural survey submitted with the
application to fully assess the impact on trees as a result of the development. In the absence
of definitive evidence of the impact of the development on tree numbers the development
would be materially harmful to the character and amenity of the site and surrounding area,
contrary to Policies 27 of the Local Plan and the NPPF 2024
6
Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application in order to fully assess
the likely impact of the proposed development on Reptiles, Great Crested Newts and
Badgers. Full survey reports should be provided prior to determination in order for there to be
certainty of likely impacts on protected species, and in the absence of such information the
proposal is contrary to Policy 30 of the Local Plan 2021.
7
The application fails to make appropriate provision for affordable housing or demonstrate no
provision is required and therefore is contrary to Policy 4 of the Local Plan 2021 and the
National Planning Policy Framework, which require appropriate mitigation to address
affordable housing needs.
8
Based on the details submitted with the application, it is unclear whether the proposal would
comply with its statutory duties and its biodiversity duties under s.4 NERC Act 2006 (as
amended), in the absence of such clarity the proposal is contrary to Policy 30 of the Local Plan
2021.
Policies cited
G2NPPFLocal Plan 26Local Plan 28HC1Local Plan 18Local Plan 23Local Plan 24Local Plan 27Local Plan 30Local Plan 4
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.