The Planning Committee of Havering Council met on Thursday 25 June 2026 to discuss and determine several planning applications. The committee approved three planning applications: one for the reconstruction of a two-storey side extension at 14 Christchurch Avenue, another for a variation of an existing permission at Greenway Court to allow for alterations to the access of a residential unit, and a third for a part single, part two-storey rear extension at 92 Grosvenor Drive.

14 Christchurch Avenue, RM13 8JB

The committee approved the reconstruction of a two-storey side extension at 14 Christchurch Avenue. This application was called in by Councillor Trevor McKeever due to concerns that the proposed development, despite revisions, still presented an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature on the prominent corner site, potentially harming the street scene and character of the area. Councillor McKeever also raised concerns about potential inaccuracies in the submitted drawings and the fact that an unauthorised front porch and hardstanding were not included in the application.

Ms. Carol Baker, a member of the public, also spoke against the application, echoing concerns about the retrospective nature of the application, previous refusals, and the enforcement notice requiring demolition. She questioned whether the proposed changes were sufficient to overcome the identified planning harm and whether the plans accurately reflected what would be demolished and retained.

The applicant's agent, Mr. Reyes Patel, explained that the extension was necessary to accommodate Mr. Ali's care requirements following a stroke, allowing him to live and sleep on the ground floor. He clarified that the communal area being lost was primarily circulation space and did not serve as amenity space for residents.

Case Officer Cole Hodder presented the revised scheme, highlighting that it incorporated a setback at first floor level and a hipped roof, designed to comply with council design guidance. He stated that the proposed extension would be subordinate to the host property and would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The committee voted to approve the application by five votes.

Greenway Court, Estate Office, Butts Green Road, Hornchurch

The committee granted planning permission for a variation of condition number 2 of planning permission reference P0353.24 at Greenway Court. This variation allows for alterations to the access to create an independent entrance for a single residential unit, which was previously approved to convert the Estate Office. The application was brought before the committee because the applicant is Councillor Alexander Sibley.

Case Officer Cole Hodder explained that the original permission was to convert part of the Estate Office into a residential unit. The current application sought to vary the approved plans to provide a separate access for the proposed flat and an enlarged window for the retained commercial space. He noted that the proposals would improve the living environment for future occupants and would not result in any material harm to neighbouring amenity, design, or the highway.

During the debate, a question was raised about the communal area that would be lost. Officer Hodder clarified that this area was primarily circulation space and did not make a material contribution to the benefit of existing residents. He confirmed that no residents had objected to this specific change. The committee voted to approve the application by five votes.

92 Grosvenor Drive, Hornchurch

The committee approved a part single, part two-storey rear extension at 92 Grosvenor Drive. The application was called in by former Councillor Christine Smith due to concerns about the loss of natural light, excessive overshadowing, and the overbearing impact on adjacent properties, arguing that no other two-storey extension of this nature existed in the vicinity.

Case Officer Aidan Hughes presented the proposal, noting that the extension would be screened from the street by the existing dwelling and neighbouring properties. He acknowledged that while two-storey rear extensions are not common, there is an example nearby, and the proposed design, size, and siting were considered acceptable and compliant with relevant planning policies and guidance. Objections from neighbours included concerns about the depth and height of extensions, potential loss of privacy, noise pollution, and the cumulative impact with a previously approved outbuilding.

The committee voted to approve the application.