| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application has used supporting information from other applications. If granted, it would not be clear as to what has been granted permission; specifically if four flats have been granted as per the submitted drawings, or seven flats as per the submitted Design and Access Statement. As both of these documents must be included in the assessment of the scheme (one has supporting information on the site, and the other has clarity on the layout of the building), the scheme would not be sufficiently clear as to what has been granted prior approval, and the scheme must be refused on grounds of consistency, clarify and the purposes of good planning. |
| 2. | The existing use of the site does not fall within use class B1(c) (light industrial use), but that of a warehouse. As such, the proposed development falls outside of the scope of the development permitted under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class PA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 [as amended] (the "GPDO"). Furthermore, the application proposes development that falls outside of the scope of the Class of development, or that of the GPDO more generally which would require planning permission in it's own right (such as the 1.2m high boundary treatment along Riverside Close, and alterations to the existing building). As a result, prior approval must be refused in line with paragraph W(3)(a) of the same Schedule and Part of the GPDO. |
| 3. | The proposed development would result in a situation where in the normal course of use the access to the site would likely place users of the vehicular highway (Riverside Close) in danger, and therefore permission cannot be granted under any Schedule, Part or Class of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 [as amended]; specifically as it contravenes Article 3(6) of the same Development Order. |
| 4. | Insufficient information has been provided on land contamination risks, and the submitted information on flood risk issues is insufficient for the purposes of assessment. When considering these issues as well as representations in relation to the change of use, the development would be unacceptable, particularly when assessed against policies 4.4, 5.19, 5.21, 5.22 of the London Plan (MALP 2016), policies DC51, DC53, DC54, and DC61 of the Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008, and the National Planning Policy Framework [as amended], and consequently the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is refused on this basis. |
| 5. | The proposed change of use is considered unacceptable in terms of transport and highways impacts and flood risk impacts. When considering these issues as well as representations in relation to the change of use, the development would be unacceptable, particularly when assessed against policies DC32, DC36, and DC62 of the Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008, and the National Planning Policy Framework [as amended], and consequently the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is refused on this basis. |
| 6. | There is no requirement for officers of the Local Planning Authority to require changes to the scheme submitted for prior approval under this Schedule, Part and Class of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 [as amended]. However, given the extent of the issues found upon full assessment of the application, it was considered necessary and expedient to issue a decision within the timeframes set out in the same Schedule, Part and Class as opposed to extending the deadline of the application. |
