| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling would have a substantial impact on openness through its resultant massing. The proposed dwelling would therefore be inappropriate development through non compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021. There are no VSC which outweigh the harm of inappropriateness and the development is accordingly unacceptable in principle. |
| 2. | Para 155(a) requires consideration as to whether the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan - specifically a, b and d of Para 143. It is the view of officers that the substantial impact on openness arising from the provision of a dwelling of the scale sought would contribute to urban sprawl on the Green Belt, there is then conflict with 143(a). Further to this there would be the low PTAL rating of 0 for the site is suggestive of the site not being in a sustainable location which would conflict with Para 155(c). The 'Golden Rules' set out at Paragraph 156/157 of the Framework do not need to be applied as the definition of major development given by the Framework is not met. The development is regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. |
| 3. | The resultant dwelling through its scale, bulk and mass would form a visually dominant feature out of scale and keeping with the surrounding built environment and constrained plot. Through its design concept, massing and cramped site it would fail to respect the existing grain of the area and would therefore neither reflect existing local character and patterns of development, nor introduce positive new character. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 135 of the NPPF which amongst other considerations requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 4. | The proposals would fail to make adequate provision for the amenity of future occupants. As a self contained dwelling house the proposals would have poor outlook and would also fail to make provision for any external amenity provision as it is required. There would be conflict with the objectives of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policy 7, London Plan Policy D6 and the objectives of the Framework which amongst other considerations requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users |
| 5. | The proposals would create opportunity for direct overlooking of adjacent sites, inconsistent with prevailing character and the relationship of dwellings in this location to one another. This direct overlooking achieved from first floor flank windows serving primary rooms even at the distances involved due to the constrained site boundary would be detrimental to the amenity of those occupants, thereby conflicting with Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 7 and 26 and the NPPF, specifically Para 135 which amongst other considerations requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users |
| 6. | The proposed development would result in the loss of formal parking required through P0030.13 for the use of the site to the south for the stationing and use as a holiday park. The current proposals make provision for parking outside of the red-line plan of the application site which cannot therefore be relied upon or assessed. The loss of parking for the holiday lets in the absence of any evidence otherwise would undermine the use of the of the site and layout as approved through encouraging parking within the site in a manner inconsistent with the objectives of the original approval. Furthermore in the absence of evidence otherwise the loss of dedicated off-streeet formalised parking have an adverse impact on the safety and convenience of the local highway network, through exacerbating pedestrian-vehicular conflict along pavements and traffic congestion within the area. The development is therefore considered unacceptable on highways grounds, as it would not be in accordance with Policies 6 & 24 of the HLP 2021, Policy T6 of the London Plan, and the objectives of the NPPF. |
| 7. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: Consideration was given to seeking amendments, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 31-10-2025 |
| 8. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London and Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the Mayoral CIL payable would be 7,508 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £37,540 based on calculation of £125 per square metre. Each would be subject to indexation.
Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
