Development Intent
Planning AtlasHavering10
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Havering · Local Plan · Policy

10 — Garden and backland development.

How Havering actually applies 10: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

10 is a published Havering planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Havering Local Plan (adopted)

Havering · 10
Where 10 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~6
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
38
times cited
in parsed decision notices
appeal survival
no PINS appeal decisions cite it
8 of 14
officer reach
57% of officers recorded in this period
Rainham & Wennington
top hotspot ward
6 citations
What this policy is about

Policy 10 requires garden and backland development in Havering to ensure good access, retain amenity space, and not harm existing occupants or green infrastructure. It will support proposals that meet these conditions, except in Hall Lane and Emerson Park Character Areas, where subdivision and garden development will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that it won't harm the area's character. The council will review existing guidance for these areas and publish updated information.

Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.

The policy — as adopted

Garden and backland development

Proposals for residential development on garden and backland sites in Havering will be supported when they: i. Ensure good access and, where possible, retain existing through routes; ii. Retain and provide adequate amenity space for existing and new dwellings; iii. Do not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of existing and new occupants; iv. Do not prejudice the future development of neighbouring sites; v. Do not result in significant adverse impacts on green infrastructure and biodiversity that cannot be effectively mitigated and; vi. Within the Hall Lane and Emerson Park Character Areas as designated on the Policies Map, the subdivision of plots and garden development will not be supported, unless it can be robustly demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area and that the proposed plot sizes are consistent with the size, setting and arrangement of properties in the surrounding area. 7.8.1 Much of the borough is sub-urban, characterised by spaciously set up neighbourhoods with large private gardens. Intensification of these areas by development on gardens or backland may provide valuable sources for housing. Development of such sites can be difficult as there are often a number of constraints. They require sensitive development and high quality design to ensure that the character of the area and the quality of life of existing and future residents is maintained. Particular care needs to be taken with proposals involving areas with a well-established character such as Emerson Park and Hall Lane. 7.8.2 This policy must be read in conjunction with Policy 7 and Policy 26 as sufficient privacy and amenity space for existing and new properties and the character and appearance are particular considerations for garden and backland development. 7.8.3 Private gardens also provide, besides important amenity and privacy roles, important ecological, drainage and flood mitigation functions. As a form of green infrastructure, these functions should be considered when any loss of garden land is proposed in line with Policy 29. 7.8.4 Land suitable for backland development may be in multiple ownerships. This may mean that not every parcel will come forward at the same time. Proposals must, therefore, demonstrate that the proposed development is of an acceptable size and that undeveloped parcels would not be landlocked or prejudiced. A comprehensive scheme removes the need for multiple entrances to small unconnected parcels which collectively may have a negative impact on highway safety and visual amenity. 7.8.5 The application will need to demonstrate that consideration has been given to all the land that has potential for development including land outside the ownership/control of the applicant. The layout must demonstrate how the additional land can be developed and that its future development will not be prejudiced. The access will need to be of a standard suitable to serve a comprehensive development with provision within the layout to extend the access to serve all the additional land. Applications which are for piecemeal development or do not satisfactorily demonstrate how a comprehensive development can be achieved will not be acceptable. London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Adopted 2021 7 Successful Places to Live 7.8.6 Emerson Park is one of the most mature and successful residential districts in the borough. It has a distinctive character and is typified by large, well maintained single family detached dwellings set within spacious plots with mature landscaping. 7.8.7 The Hall Lane area of Upminster is occupied mostly by established large detached and semi-detached dwellings, set in large gardens with considerable tree and shrub planting. The area's character derives primarily from the long and well landscaped rear gardens whose size and good tree cover create unusual spaciousness which is extensive and uninterrupted. 7.8.8 The Council has operated policies aimed at preserving the spacious character of these areas for around forty years. This has helped to maintain their special character and retain a critical stock of large good, quality family and executive homes which have contributed to the diversity of homes available within the borough. The Council will review the existing Supplementary Planning Documents for these area and will publish updated guidance to assist those bringing forward developments in these areas.

Verbatim from the adopted Havering plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.

How it lands
0% in approvals · 100% in refusals
38 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Rainham & Wennington6
Squirrels Heath4
Mawneys4
What cites it — application types
all years on record · click a slice to filter
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue 10 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

10 appears most often in Rainham & Wennington, Squirrels Heath, Mawneys. It appears across 8 of 14 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
0%
in approvals
0 citations
100%
in refusals
38 citations

This shows the decision reports in which 10 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why 10 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance

No Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions on record cite 10. When one lands (the appeals table refreshes each weekday), the dismissed/allowed record appears here — never estimated.

Related — follow the thread
Havering
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Havering's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Havering decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.