| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application would result in inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt, and is unacceptable in principle. Furthermore, the site lies outside of any Major Developed Sites, any authorised commercial or industrial sites, Strategic Industrial Locations or a Secondary Employment Areas. Consequently, the proposed change in the use of land, as well as the siting of the containers, are opposed in principle by paragraphs 143-147 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 [as amended], policy 7.16 of the London Plan (MALP) 2016 policies DC9, DC10, DC11 and DC45 of the Havering Core Strategy Development Control Plan Development Control Policies DPD 2008. |
| 2. | The application would by reason of the bulk, scale, mass and visual appearance of the proposed additional portacabins within the site, as well as the likely visual impacts arising from the change of use to B2 use and associated vehicle parking and storage, result in development that has a greater impact on the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt, and in any event would fail to respond to local spatial character of the area and have an unacceptable impact on the site and the area more generally, including harm to the Havering Ridge Area of Special Character. The proposed development would therefore be unacceptable when assessed against paragraphs 143-147 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 [as amended], policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan (MALP) 2016, and policies CP17, DC45, and DC61 of the Havering Core Strategy Development Control Plan Development Control Policies DPD 2008. |
| 3. | The application would result in less than substantial harm to the Havering-Atte-Bower conservation area, and the setting of the nearby Grade-II listed Ivy Holt (listing reference 1358539); and no public benefits would outweigh this harm. The proposal does not provide clarity in respect of the nature of the proposed use, particularly the traffic impacts arising therefrom. In the absence of such information, but taking into consideration the visual impacts of the proposed portacabins as well as those resulting from the change of use of the land to B2 purposes, including storage and parking of veicles, it is judged that the application would have an unacceptable impact on heritage assets, and is unacceptable when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, policy 7.8 of the London Plan (MALP) 2016, and policies DC67 and DC68 of the Havering Core Strategy Development Control Plan Development Control Policies DPD 2008. |
| 4. | The application would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area, including the acoustic environment and management of potential hazardous substances. The proposal does not provide clarity on the nature of the proposed use. However change of use to B2 (general industrial) would be likely to give rise to conditions which result in material harm to neighbouring residential amenity by reason of noise and disturbance. Furthermore, it is not clear if the proposed use would integrate into the existing situation effectively, particularly in relation to the care home use on the site. The application is therefore unacceptable when assessed against the NPPF, policies 5.22, 7.14 and 7.15 of the London Plan (MALP), and policies DC54, DC55 and DC61 of the Havering Core Strategy Development Control Plan Development Control Policies DPD 2008. |
| 5. | Insufficient information has been supplied to indicate if there would be adequate access to the site, and if the management of vehicle movements would be necessary to address concerns over the impact of the use on the highway and access to the site, and if this could be effectively integrated into surrounding and nearby uses. The development is therefore unacceptable in terms of highways issues and when assessed against policies DC33, DC36 and DC61 of the Havering Core Strategy Development Control Plan Development Control Policies DPD 2008. |
| 6. | 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 for the application via e-mail.
Further to this, 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 any event, the proposed development was found to be unacceptable in principle, and on its own merits, and no changes to the application could make the proposed development acceptable without a materially different scheme and a substantial delay to 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. |
