| 1. | The proposed development would - through unacceptably small bedrooms and the inappropriate design and layout of the scheme - provide sub-standard units of accommodation and cramped living conditions for future occupants. The proposed development would be unacceptable when assessed against policy 3.5 (and Table 3.3) of the London Plan (MALP 2016), policy D6 (and Table 3.1) of the Draft London Plan (Intend to Publish December 2019), the Technical housing standards - nationally described space standard (March 2015), and policies CP17, DC3 and DC61 of LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008, and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 2. | 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 planning agent for the scheme prior to the decision notice being issued. The reasoned justification for this is as below:
Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (the NPPF) requires Local Planning Authorities to approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way, and paragraph 41 of the NPPF places an expectation that issues on applications should be addressed prior to submission of an application. The Council has made available on its website the policies and guidance provided by the Development Plan in its entirety. The Council also offers a full pre-application advice service in order to ensure that the applicant has every opportunity to submit an application that's likely to be considered acceptable. In this instance the application as submitted followed from a previously refused application for similar development. In any event, the application as assessed was unacceptable on its own merits, and the changes required to the scheme (which would have resulted in a change to the description of development and re-consultation) could not reasonably be achieved without substantial delay to the deadline of the application. Consequently, officers consider that the requirements to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframes as possible (as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF) outweighs the need to require changes with the application. |
