| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The site is not in a sustainable location, would have high reliance on private transport due to poor public transport links and the urbanisation of the site would be detrimental to visual amenity. It has further not been evidenced that the provision of six additional pitches (in addition to those already in situ and sought separately) would not contribute unacceptably to demand on local infrastructure which could be accommodated. The development is thereby in conflict with the objectives of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policy 11. |
| 2. | The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is not regarded to be Grey-Belt Land for the purposes of assessment. The site is not in a sustainable location having regard to Paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework and would accordingly be inappropriate development. The development would furthermore fundamentally undermine the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. No compelling case has been presented which would demonstrate Very Special Circumstances which would outweigh the in principle and other harm identified including harm to openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The development is contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 3. | The scale of the use in conjunction with other existing land uses would represent a significant intensification of the residential use in this location. Singularly and cumulatively through the siting of mobile homes, laying of hardstanding and designated pitches there would be a detrimental effect on the green character of the locality and visual amenity more generally. The redevelopment of the site would represent an unwelcome urbanisation of an otherwise open setting. The proposals are then in conflict with the objectives of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 11 and 26 and the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Para 135 which requires development add to the overall quality of the area and are sympathetic to local character. |
| 4. | The proposed development fails to demonstrate that an adequate strategy for the management of surface water runoff can be achieved on the site. Insufficient information has been provided to show that the development would incorporate appropriate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Non Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS. In the absence of a satisfactory surface water drainage strategy, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal would prevent an increased risk of flooding on-site or elsewhere. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 32 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and Paras 181/182 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 5. | The applicant has failed to provide adequate ecological information to enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the likely impacts of the development on protected species, including (but not limited to) Great Crested Newt and Badger. Government guidance requires that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they may be affected by the proposed development, must be established prior to determination. The development would accordingly be in conflict with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in particular Paragraph 187 and the Local Planning Authority's statutory duties under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). There would also be a conflict with Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 27 and 30 and London Plan Policy G6. |
| 6. | By way of a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) issued by the Secretary of State on 31 August 2015, the intentional unauthorised development (IUD) that has taken place is a material consideration that weighs against the proposal. It is clear that works were planned to be carried out on the site just before or at the same time that the planning application was submitted representing IUD. |
| 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 in writing 17-03-2026. |
| 8. | 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 Mayoral CIL payable would be £2,962.50 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £14,812.50 based on calculation of £125 per square metre. Each would be subject to indexation.
Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
