| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The site is within the area identified as Metropolitan Green Belt. Government Guidance as set out in the NPPF is that in order to achieve the purposes of the Metropolitan Green Belt it is essential to retain and protect the existing open character of the area so allocated and that new buildings will only be permitted in certain circumstances. The erection of a single storey building for usage as a non-residential education and training centre would not be in the same use and materially larger than the shed it would replace. It would therefore cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt and no special circumstances have been submitted in this case. The development proposal is therefore inappropriate development contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The proposed development, by reason of its size, bulk, scale and massing, would form an overly dominant, incongruous and visually intrusive feature within the rear garden environment of Clay Tye Road. It would be out of character with the buildings within the surrounding environment as well as the established layout of dwellings in the area and would be therefore harmful to local character, contrary to Local Plan Policies 16 and 26, Policy D4 of the London Plan and Paragraph 135(d) of the NPPF which requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 3. | The applicant has not evidenced satisfactorily that there is an identified need within the borough for a specialised day care centre service nor that the proposal would be accessible by public transport and active travel, be located within the community that they are intended to serve and incorporate an inclusive design, not adversely impact on residential character and amenity, ensure highway safety, explore the possibility to co-locate or be provided in flexible, adaptable and 'healthy' buildings. The proposed development is accordingly unacceptable in principle and contrary to Local Plan Policy 16. |
| 4. | The applicant has not evidenced satisfactorily that any adverse amenity impacts on nearby residents associated with the erection of the building used as a non-residential education and training centre in terms of noise and disturbance can be mitigated. The development would accordingly be contrary to Local Plan Policies 7 and 16 and Policy D14 of the London Plan. |
| 5. | The applicant has not evidenced satisfactorily that any adverse parking and highways impacts associated with the erection of a single storey building for usage as a non-residential education and training centre can be mitigated. The development would accordingly be contrary to Local Plan Policies 16 and 24 and Policy T6 of the London Plan. |
| 6. | In the event that this application is allowed through the appeals process, the proposal would be liable for the following CIL contributions:
Mayoral CIL (MCIL2) contribution of £7,025 (x £25 per sqm).
Havering CIL (HCIL) contribution of £31,125 (x £125 per sqm)
Each contribution would be subject to indexation. |
| 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 by e-mail on 17/04/2024. |
