Development Intent
Planning AtlasHavering34
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Havering · Local Plan · Policy

34 — Managing pollution.

How Havering actually applies 34: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

34 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 · 34
Where 34 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~5
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
37
times cited
in parsed decision notices
appeal survival
no PINS appeal decisions cite it
9 of 14
officer reach
64% of officers recorded in this period
Rush Grn & Crowlands
top hotspot ward
5 citations
What this policy is about

Policy 34 requires development proposals to not unduly impact on amenity, human health and safety, and the natural environment by pollution. The Council will support proposals that optimise design and layout to minimise exposure to pollutants. This policy applies to all development proposals and the Council will resist proposals that pose an unacceptable risk to water quality or human health.

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

The policy — as adopted

Managing pollution

The Council will support development proposals that: i. ii. iii. 12.6.1 Do not unduly impact upon amenity, human health and safety and the natural environment by noise, dust, odour and light pollution, vibration and land contamination; Do not pose an unacceptable risk to the quality of the water catchment, groundwater or surface water; and Optimise the design, layout and orientation of buildings and the use of green infrastructure to minimise exposure to the above pollutants. The health and safety of residents and visitors to the borough can be affected by pollution of the air, water and land as well as light and noise pollution. The Council seeks to minimise the exposure to pollutants both during construction and over the lifetime of the development to ensure the creation of safe and healthy places to live, visit and work in the borough. This policy should be read in conjunction with Policy 33. Local Plan 2016-2031 Adopted 2021 London Borough of Havering 12 Green Places 12.6.2 The Mayor of London's Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Sustainable Design and Construction provides detailed guidance on how exposure to pollutants could be addressed in the design of schemes, how adverse effects could be appropriately mitigated and sets out when detailed assessments will be required. Additional guidance to minimise adverse impacts during construction are set out in the Mayor's 'The control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition' SPG. 12.6.3 A different degree of exposure to pollutants may be acceptable for different types of land uses. In considering development proposals and accompanying detailed assessments, both the individual and cumulative adverse impacts of development will be taken into account. Development should also ensure that human health and the environment is protected during the cleaning up of any pollution or land contamination. 12.6.4 External lighting is often required to provide healthy and safe environments, to enhance the appearance of buildings and to extend the use of facilities, such as outdoor sports facilities. However, inappropriate lighting can negatively affect residents' quality of life, significantly change the character of the locality, adversely affect wildlife and use unnecessary amounts of energy. Care should be taken to ensure lighting only illuminates intended areas and does not affect or impact on its surroundings. The Institute (17) of Lighting Engineers Guidance Note provides additional guidance on the design of light installations. Applicants are also encouraged to consider guidance from the Bat Conservation Trust (18) to minimise the impact of artificial lighting on wildlife 12.6.5 Where there is a potential for land contamination, a staged process of risk assessment will be required to demonstrate that land contamination has been effectively considered and addressed and that the land is suitable for its intended use, in accordance with the Council's Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy. The Environment Agency should be consulted when the proposed development poses a potential risk to controlled waters due to land contamination having regard to the Environment Agency's (19) groundwater protection principles . Regard should be given to the Surface Protection Zone along the border with Barking and Dagenham, which needs to be protected during development around discharges or pathways to groundwater. The Council’s leaflet titled ‘Land Contamination and the Planning Process’ provides information on what the Council requires in order to assess if a development is suitable for the proposed use on land which is potentially affected by contamination.

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
37 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Rush Grn & Crowlands5
St Edward's5
St Andrew's4
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 34 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

34 appears most often in Rush Grn & Crowlands, St Edward's, St Andrew's. It appears across 9 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
37 citations

This shows the decision reports in which 34 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 34 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 34. 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.