Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Havering Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Planning Committee - Thursday, 25 June 2026 - 7.00 pm
June 25, 2026 at 7:00 pm Planning Committee View on council websiteSummary
Open Council Network is an independent organisation. We report on Havering and are not the council. About us
The Planning Committee of Havering Council met on Thursday 25 June 2026. The committee considered three planning applications. The committee granted planning permission for extensions at 92 Grosvenor Drive and 14 Christchurch Avenue, and also approved a variation of an existing permission at Greenway Court.
14 Christchurch Avenue, Beam Park Ward
The committee considered planning permission for the reconstruction of a two-storey side extension at 14 Christchurch Avenue. This application was called in by Councillor Trevor McKeever due to concerns about the development's design, bulk, and impact on the street scene, as well as previous refusals and an existing enforcement notice.
Councillor McKeever argued that the proposed scheme was largely the same as previous refused applications and did not adequately address the identified harm. He stated, the form of the development that was previously found to be harmful does not clearly appear to have been resolved. It appears largely to remain.
Ms. Carol Baker, speaking against the application, echoed these concerns, questioning whether the proposed changes were sufficient to overcome previous planning harm and highlighting potential discrepancies with the enforcement notice. She asked, Are you satisfied the officer's assessment demonstrates that the planning harm identified in previous refusals has genuinely been overcome?
Mr. Reyes Patel, the applicant's representative, provided context about the family's needs, explaining that the extension was necessary due to Mr. Ali's complex disabilities following a stroke, requiring ground-floor living and care facilities.
Case Officer Cole Hodder presented the revised scheme, which included a setback at first-floor level and a hipped roof, designed to comply with council guidance. The officer's recommendation for approval was based on the view that the revised scheme addressed previous concerns regarding design, scale, and relationship to neighbouring properties. The committee approved the application.
92 Grosvenor Drive, Hylands & Harrow Lodge Ward
Planning permission was granted for a part single, part two-storey rear extension at 92 Grosvenor Drive. The application had been called in by former Councillor Christine Smith due to concerns about loss of natural light, overshadowing, and the potential for the development to set a precedent for overbearing extensions in the vicinity.
Objectors raised concerns about the depth of the proposed extension, potential cumulative impact with an existing outbuilding, loss of privacy, and noise pollution.
Case Officer Aidan Hughes explained that the proposed extension's depth and siting complied with the council's Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). He noted that the first-floor extension would be set back from the boundaries and would not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity. The committee approved the officer's recommendation for approval, subject to conditions.
Greenway Court, Estate Office, Butts Green Road, Emerson Park Ward
The committee approved a variation of an existing planning permission at Greenway Court, which allows for the conversion of the estate office to a self-contained residential unit. The application, reference P0353.24, was brought before the committee because the applicant is Councillor Alexander Sibley.
The variation sought to alter the access arrangements for the proposed residential unit, creating a separate entrance and increasing the unit's size by approximately 12.8 square meters by utilising some of the communal area.
Case Officer Cole Hodder stated that the proposals would improve the living environment for future occupants and would not result in any material harm to neighbouring amenity, design, or highway safety. He explained that the communal area being used was effectively dead space
and its loss would not negatively impact residents. The committee unanimously approved the officer's recommendation for approval, subject to conditions.
Attendees
Topics
Meeting Documents
Agenda