| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The PPG states that a Section 73 application cannot be used to change the description of development. This is supported by the Court of Appeal judgement in Finney v Welsh Ministers & Ors (Rev 1) (2019) EWCA CIV 1868. The works proposed would result in the formation of a two bedroom dwelling rather than extensions to the host dwelling that were approved under the parent application, which did not approve a new dwelling on the site, and would thereby differ materially from the description of development on the original decision notice which cannot be varied under Section 73. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its uncharacteristically narrow configuration and plot-width as well as cramped appearance, be out of keeping with the pattern of development in the local area and harmfully inconsistent with the prevailing character of the local area, contrary to contrary to Policy D4 of the London Plan (2016), Policy 9 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan. There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that developments should function well, add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character and the design principles. |
| 3. | The proposed development would result in living conditions that do not create a suitably high quality living environment for future occupiers. The proposal would be substandard for a three person dwelling, with the overall dimension failing to meet the internal space standards of the nationally described space standards. The lack of internal space, narrow and cramped configuration would be in direct contrast to the aims of London Plan Policy D6, the nationally described space standard and Policies 7 and 9 of the Havering Local Plan. |
| 4. | The proposed development would provide inadequate on-site car parking provision. No plans have been provided showing on-site parking. The photos submitted within the supporting statement indicate a car being positioned at an angle which would restrict manoeuvring when entering and existing the site, in particular if there is another car (belonging to a separate occupier) is parked on the hardstanding. As a result, it is considered the proposal would fail to comply with Policies 23 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy T6.1 of the London Plan. |
| 5. | 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 Mr Pearce (Agent) by e-mail on 26th June 2023. |
