| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would - by reason of its height, bulk and mass and inappropriate design - appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature to the host building and to the area more generally, and would be contrary to policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2016, policies D4 and D8 of the emerging Draft London Plan ("Intend to Publish" version December 2019), and policies CP17 and DC61 of the Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008, and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD 2008. |
| 2. | The proposed development would - by reason of its excessive depth, height and position close to the boundaries of the site - be an intrusive and unneighbourly development as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area, and is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies CP17 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD 2008. |
| 3. | 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 by e-mail prior to the decision being issued.
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. On the Council's website in relation to pre-application advice, it is explicitly stated that:
"If a planning application is submitted without the benefit of pre-application advice, we will not normally negotiate amendments before reaching a decision."
In this instance, no requests for pre-application advice was submitted to the Council prior to the submission of this application. Furthermore, the proposed development was found to be unacceptable on its own merits, and any changes required to make the scheme acceptable 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. |
