| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, and the proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions set out in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the NPPF, constituting inappropriate development. The scale, massing, layout, height, and siting of the buildings would result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and lead to urbanisation of the site. No Very Special Circumstances have been demonstrated to outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness and loss of openness. The proposal is therefore unacceptable in principle and contrary to the objectives of the NPPF and Policy G2 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The proposals including the day care centre would, by reasons of the scale, massing, height, design, layout and siting, give rise to an unacceptable form of development, which would fail to respond or contribute positively to the historic site context of Havering-Atte-Bower Conservation Area and further detracts from the green open character of the context, and would harm the character of the site and the significance of the Conservation Area and would not preserve or enhance the special character of this part of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policies 26 and 28 of the Local Plan, Policy HC1 of the London Plan and the NPPF 2024. |
| 3. | The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal, given the location on a bend and the poor visibility splays, in combination with the increased anticipated level of vehicle movements to and from the site especially from the day care centre, would not result in conflict between those vehicles entering and leaving the site and other road users and pedestrians, contrary to policies 23 and 24 of the Local Plan 2021. |
| 4. | In the absence of operational details for the proposed day care centre, the combined development with five residential units would result in a significant intensification of use. This would lead to overdevelopment of the site, causing harm to the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area, contrary to Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan, London Plan Policies D6 and T4. |
| 5. | The cumulative impact of increased traffic, the proximity of the long vehicular access to the day care centre along the shared boundary, and the associated rise in vehicle movements and noise within the rear garden environment would significantly harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, particularly at Nos. 1A and Floradale. The proposal would therefore result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity from noise and disturbance from vehicles coming and going to the site, contrary to London Plan Policy D6 and Havering Local Plan Policy 7. |
| 6. | The development fails to provide sufficient on-site parking for both the residential units and the day care centre. This shortfall is likely to result in overspill parking onto North Road, exacerbating existing congestion and posing risks to highway safety, contrary to London Plan Policy T6 and Havering Local Plan Policy 24, which require adequate parking provision to avoid adverse impacts on highway safety and residential amenity. |
| 7. | Inadequate information has been provided within the arboricultural survey submitted with the application to fully assess the impact on trees as a result of the development. In the absence of definitive evidence of the impact of the development on tree numbers, the development would be materially harmful to the character and amenity of the site and surrounding area, contrary to Policies 27 of the Local Plan and the NPPF 2024 |
| 8. | The application fails to demonstrate compliance with statutory biodiversity duties under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (as amended) and Policy 30 of the Havering Local Plan (2021). In the absence of sufficient ecological information, the proposal does not adequately assess or address its potential impact on biodiversity. |
| 9. | 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 proposals would be liable for the following CIL contributions:
The proposals would result in the formation of approximately 435 sq.m of floor area. This would translate to a contribution of:
- MCIL (£25 per sqm) - £10,875
- HCIL (£125 per sqm) - £54,375
Each contribution would be subject to indexation |
| 10. | 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, and the issues of concern were previously raised during the pre-application process, 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. |
