| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The site is within the area identified in the Local Plan as Metropolitan Green Belt. The Local Plan, as well as the London Plan and the Guidance Given in the National Planning Policy Framework emphasise that in order to achieve the purposes of the Metropolitan Green Belt it is essential to retain and protect the existing rural character of the area so allocated and that the new development will only be permitted outside the existing built up areas in the most exceptional circumstances. The proposal would not meet any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 149 of the Framework. The very special circumstances which have been submitted in this case are not considered to outweigh the harm of the inappropriate development. Therefore, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, by definition this is harmful and the proposal would conflict with Policy G2 of the London Plan and the objectives of the Framework (NPPF (2021)) |
| 2. | The proposed development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the green belt by taking 0.6ha of open space which is open and rural in character and introducing forms of development which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the green belt and reduce the openness. The proposed development would, by reason of its siting bulk and massing, result in unsympathetic, visually intrusive development which would not preserve the open character and important historic landscape/character of the Cranham Conservation Area. The proposal would adversely affect the visual amenity of the area. Therefore, the introduction of built form, as proposed, would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt in spatial term. Also, given the variation between the existing and proposed in visual terms, that the scheme would have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would lead to a significant loss of Green Belt openness and would therefore conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy and would conflict with the Framework, London Plan Policy G2, Policies 26, 27 and 28 of the Local Plan and The Cranham Character Appraisal. |
| 3. | The approval of the proposed development would prejudice the enforcement proceedings against the breach of planning condition currently pursued by the enforcement arm of the council. It is considered that the lack of appropriate landscaping scheme which has been requires as part of a previous planning application would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The NPPF states that in order to achieve the purposes of the Green Belt it is essential to retain and protect the existing rural character of the area so allocated and that new development will only be permitted outside the existing built up areas in the most exceptional circumstances. The condition imposed sought to make the inappropriate development to become acceptable, by allowing a large part of the site to be allocated for green infrastructure as part of the justification to establish very special circumstances that had been submitted in the original development to outweigh the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness and visual harm to the character and openness of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 27 (Landscaping), Policy 29 (Green infrastructure) and Policy 30 (Biodiversity and geodiversity) of the Local Plan 2021 and Policy G1 (Green infrastructure), Policy G4 (Open space), Policy G5 (Urban greening), Policy G6 (Biodiversity and access to nature ) and Policy G7 (Trees and woodlands) of the London Plan 2021 as well as the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 with particular reference chapter 13, the Protecting Green Belt land. |
| 4. | The proposal would fail to comply with the policies promoting sustainable development with particular reference to inadequate and insufficient information relating to energy efficiency, whole life-cycle carbon; circular economy; urban greening; drainage; air quality and noise. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SI2, SI3 and SI4 (Energy strategy compliance), Policy SI7 (Circular Economy), Policies G1, G4 and G5 (Urban greening and infrastructure), Policy SI13 (Sustainable drainage), Policy SI5 (Water efficiency), Policy SI1 Air Quality, Policy D14 (Ambient noise) of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 33 (Air quality), Policy 35 (Waste management), Policy 36 (Low carbon design and renewable energy) of the Local Plan as well as the advice given in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). The reason for refusal could be addressed as highlighted in the body of report and through a draft section 106 agreement. |
| 5. | 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 on 24.04.2023 |
| 6. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the Mayoral CIL payable would be £72,825 based on the calculation of 25.00 per square metre. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
