| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | There is no evidence that there is an identified need in the borough for the use for local residents. Information indicates that there is already a wide choice in the borough and that the market exceeds the community's requirements by a considerable margin. The use of the premises is therefore in conflict with Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policy 6(i). |
| 2. | The applicant has not demonstrated that the site is appropriate and suitable for the intended use/occupants in terms of the standard of facilities, the level of independence, and the provision of support and/or care provided. The constrained plan form and limited floor area on the ground floor does not lend itself to the level of activity and occupation which may arise, nor would the cramped internal arrangement be capable of being easily adapted to meet the needs of future occupants. The use is therefore contrary to Policy 6 of the Local Plan 2016-2031 and would be detrimental to the amenity of future occupants. |
| 3. | The use of the premises for a care related function would conflict with the purposes for which the permission was granted for the dwelling in this location. The property would essentially be occupied by six persons (resident and staff present 24 hours a day) and the broader functions of the use may generate additional comings and goings and disturbance distinguishable from its lawful use. The proposals would be disproportionate in scale for a semi-detached dwelling and would have potential to undermine community cohesion and resilience. In the absence of compelling evidence otherwise the proposals are in conflict with Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 6 and 34 as well as the objectives of the London Plan and NPPF which requires amongst other considerations high standard of amenity for existing and future users. |
| 4. | It has not been demonstrated that proposed use would not lead to increased comings and goings to the site over and above that of a single dwelling house based on the level of activity associated that is known, nor that adequate visitor and carer parking facilities could be provided due to the site constraints. In the absence of evidence otherwise this would lead to increased competition for limited on-street parking which would result in 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. Thus, the proposal is considered unacceptable, and would not be in accordance with Policies 6 & 24 of the HLP 2021, Policy T6 of the London Plan, and to the objectives of the NPPF. |
| 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, it was necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application. |
