Plans for new Emerson Park homes rejected
Emerson Park will remain “the jewel in Havering’s crown” after plans for four new detached houses were thrown out at the council’s regulatory services committee on Thursday.
The proposals for Herbert Road, would have seen one building demolished and a new access road, car parking and amenity space installed.
Neil Cotterill, from applicant Banner Homes, said that the proposal was based on feedback from an appeal against a previous unsuccessful application for six houses in the same space.
He added that the new plans exceeded planning guidelines in terms of the amount of dwellings in one area.
Cllr Steven Kelly (Conservative, Emerson Park) called-in the plans to the meeting although he said that he did not particularly oppose them.
You may also want to watch:
Responding to a resident’s statement that the area had previously been referred to as “the jewel in the crown of Havering”, he said: “It’s me that said about the jewel in the crown and I think they (the houses) would make adequate stones.”
But Cllr Ron Ower (Residents’ Association, Upminster), who also claimed to have used the ‘jewel in the crown phrase’, and said that the proposal was unsuitable for the area, creating a “cul-de-sac within a cul-de-sac”.
- 1 'Disgraceful': Ex-estate agent sentenced for Chris Whitty assault
- 2 Daniel Laskos stabbing: Teens plead not guilty to murder
- 3 Harold Hill man pleads guilty to Chris Whitty assault
- 4 Chronically ill Romford man's fight for diagnosis after being told problem is psychological
- 5 Lower Thames Crossing: How would Upminster be affected?
- 6 Road and rail disruptions coming up over the coming week
- 7 Romford ‘best in region’ chef shares his cooking tip and favourite dish
- 8 Meet the Olympians from east London and Brentwood
- 9 Daniel Laskos stabbing: Teens charged with murder to face court
- 10 'Lovely service': Initial impressions of Kem Cetinay's restaurant Array
He added: “If we continue to butt away at areas like this, I think our heritage will become damaged.”
The proposal was defeated by six votes to five.