Planning appeal decision
Land Ne Side of Church Road, Noak Hill, Romford, Essex, RM4 1LD
Planning appeal 3377437 at Land Ne Side of Church Road, Noak Hill, Romford, Essex, RM4 1LD (London Borough of Havering) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 23 June 2026 by Inspector Kean G, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt exists, including whether the appeal site is grey belt, the contribution made to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and whether it is a sustainable location.
Material change of use of land for stationing of mobile homes and touring caravans for residential use, together with operational development to form a new traveller site including pitches, hardstanding and boundary fencing
- Authority
- London Borough of Havering
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Change of use
- Inspector
- Kean G
- Postcode
- RM4 1LD
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt exists, including whether the appeal site is grey belt, the contribution made to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and whether it is a sustainable location
- if inappropriate development, the effect on openness
- character and appearance of the area, including visual and landscape impacts
- impact on protected species and biodiversity
- surface water drainage and flood risk
- weight to be given to intentional unauthorised development
- if inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations amounting to the very special circumstances required to justify the development
What decided it
The cumulative and substantial/very substantial harm to the Green Belt (inappropriateness, loss of openness) combined with very significant weight attached to intentional unauthorised development was not clearly outweighed by the unmet Gypsy and Traveller need, lack of five-year pitch supply and personal circumstances, so very special circumstances were not established.
the substantial harm from inappropriate development and loss of openness, significant harm to character and appearance, and very substantial weight attached to intentional unauthorised development were not clearly outweighed by the substantial weight given to unmet Gypsy and Traveller need/lack of five-year pitch supply and the moderate-to-substantial weight given to personal circumstances, so very special circumstances did not exist and the balance tipped against the development
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy G2Policy H14Policy 11Policy 12Policy 23Policy 26Policy 27Policy 30Policy 32
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 135Paragraph 143Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 155Paragraph 186Paragraph 187
- Judgments
- Dear v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 29 (Admin)
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in London Borough of Havering
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Notice varied and upheld4 August 2026336052222 Nelmes Crescent, Hornchurch, RM11 2QB
- Dismissed4 August 2026335968830 Crow Lane, Romford, RM7 0EL
- Planning permission granted29 July 202633678405A Myrtle Road, Romford, RM3 8XS
- Notice upheld25 June 20263358682Chalkfields Tomkyns Lane, Upminster, RM14 1TP
- Split Decision23 June 20263377383Noak Hill, Romford, RM4 1LD
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®