Havering Council Orders Demolition at Three Horseshoes Farm Noak Hill

Key Points

• Havering Council has issued five enforcement notices and one enforcement warning notice against unauthorised development at Three Horseshoes Farm on Noak Hill Road.
• Developments include a storage building, a portable cabin, and use of the land as a scaffolding yard, all on protected green belt land without planning permission.
• Council deems the storage building “visually intrusive” and of “poor design”, with no justification for its construction for storage purposes.
• Portable cabin also ruled “visually intrusive” with no justification for placement.
• All structures must be demolished, debris and materials removed, and land restored to its former condition.
• Recipients include James Benjamin Mason (linked to Three Horseshoes Farm and Catford Hill, Catford), plus unnamed owner and occupiers of the farm.
• Prior planning application by Mr Mason on July 9, 2025, for two barns for agricultural use was refused on August 1, 2025.
• Scaffolding yard use ordered to stop, with all associated vehicles and previous development demolished; deemed inappropriate green belt development harming openness and visual amenity.
• Notices take effect January 31, 2026; three months to comply; failure risks prosecution or council action.
• Appeals must reach Planning Inspectorate in writing before January 31, 2026.

Havering Council has ordered the immediate halt and demolition of unauthorised buildings and a scaffolding yard on protected green belt land at Three Horseshoes Farm, Noak Hill Road, issuing five enforcement notices and one warning notice to recipients including James Benjamin Mason.

The developments—a storage building, portable cabin, and scaffolding operations—breached planning controls without permission, described as visually intrusive and harmful to the green belt’s openness. Recipients must demolish all structures, remove materials and vehicles, and restore the site by April 30, 2026, or face prosecution.

A prior application by Mr Mason was refused last summer.

What triggered Havering Council’s enforcement action at Three Horseshoes Farm?

Havering Council acted decisively against breaches of planning control at Three Horseshoes Farm on Noak Hill Road, a site within the protected green belt.

As detailed in the official enforcement notices, construction of a storage building, placement of a portable cabin, and operation of a scaffolding yard occurred without planning permission. The council’s documents state these works “breached planning control” and were carried out “without planning permission”.

The storage building drew specific criticism for being “visually intrusive” and of “poor design”. The notices assert: “No justification for its construction for storage purposes arose.” Furthermore, the council concluded that “any planning conditions attached to a planning application would not overcome these problems and therefore no permission would be given.”

Similarly, the portable cabin was labelled “visually intrusive” with “no justification for construction” according to the council.

Who are the recipients of the enforcement notices?

The enforcement actions target specific individuals and entities connected to the site.

James Benjamin Mason is listed as a recipient under two addresses: Three Horseshoes Farm, Noak Hill Road, and another in Catford Hill, Catford. The unnamed owner and occupiers of Three Horseshoes Farm are also named recipients.

These parties must ensure all unauthorised works cease, with structures demolished and the land returned “back to its former condition before the unauthorised development started.”

What prior planning application was submitted for the site?

James Benjamin Mason submitted a planning application on July 9, 2025, seeking “prior notification of development for two barns for agricultural use.”

Havering Council refused this application on August 1, 2025, paving the way for the subsequent enforcement measures amid ongoing unauthorised activities.

Why has the scaffolding yard use been targeted?

A dedicated enforcement notice addresses the change of use of the land to a scaffolding yard, ordering it to stop immediately.

The notice deems that “no justification for the change of use of the land was given” and highlights that the scaffolding yard comprises “visually intrusive” buildings. It explicitly reads:

“The change of use represents inappropriate development in the green belt and fails to preserve the openness of the green belt. The breach of planning control is materially harmful to the visual amenity and open character of the surrounding area.”

Developers must cease the unauthorised use, demolish previous development, and remove all associated vehicles from the site.

When do the enforcement notices take effect and what are the compliance deadlines?

The notices take effect on January 31, 2026. Recipients have three months from that date—until April 30, 2026—to fully comply by demolishing buildings, clearing debris and materials, restoring the land, and halting the scaffolding yard operations.

What happens if recipients fail to comply with the orders?

Failure to comply “could result in prosecution or remedial action taken by the council,” as stated in the notices.

The council reserves the right to step in and undertake necessary remedial works, potentially at the expense of the recipients.

How can recipients appeal the enforcement notices?

Appeals must be submitted in writing and received—or posted in time to be received—by the Planning Inspectorate before January 31, 2026.

This process provides a formal avenue for challenge, though the council’s determinations on visual impact, green belt preservation, and lack of justification stand firm in the interim.

What broader implications does this have for green belt development in Havering?

This case underscores Havering Council’s strict stance on green belt protections in Noak Hill and surrounding areas. The enforcement emphasises preserving “openness” and “visual amenity,” core principles of green belt policy under national planning guidelines.

Local residents and campaigners have long voiced concerns over encroachments on such land, with this action reinforcing that inappropriate development—whether storage, cabins, or commercial yards—will not be tolerated without robust justification.