![[2024] UKUT 00146 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
The CAAD application and Newham’s certificate
The CAAD application and Newham’s certificate
While it is not the Tribunal’s role to review Newham’s certificate but to consider the application afresh, it is nevertheless helpful for context to outline the appellant’s application and Newham’s response.
The appellant’s CAAD application dated 11 October 2022 was registered by Newham as:
“Section 17 Application for Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development for a mixed-use development based on the notional development proposal and other alternative options (Application site is located within Sugar House Lane Conservation Area) (LPA ref. 22/02438/CAAD)”.
On 20 February 2023, Newham issued its ‘Nil’ Certificate against the CAAD application. The Decision Notice First Schedule reads
“Section 17 application for Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development for a mixed-use development based on the national [sic] development proposals and other alternative options (Application site is located within Sugar House Lane Conservation Area)”.
Newham certified that in its opinion if the land were not proposed to be acquired:
“…planning permission would NOT have been granted by the Council for the development specified in the First Schedule to this certificate as an alternative development for which the land been compulsory acquired for.”
Newham’s reasons were fourfold:
The proposed use of the component plots in question would not be acceptable in principle based on the predominantly residential use and the low provision of commercial floor space. This would be contrary to the requirements of policy B.1 of the LLDC Local Plan. The proposed use would also have the potential to prejudice the comprehensive development sought by LLDC site designation SA4.2.
Officers have identified inconsistencies in the housing mix quoted within the Planning Statement submitted in support of the application and the mix shown on the submitted floor plans. The indicative floor plans suggest that only 15% family housing would be delivered, which would constitute a significant shortfall against the 40% family housing target, contrary to Policy 3.3 of the London Plan, Policy H.1 of the LLDC Local Plan, the objectives of LLDC site allocation SA4.2 and the guidance within the NPPF.
The form and scale of the notional development would fail to accord with the prevailing building heights within the defined areas of Stratford High Street and Sugar House Lane. Insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate how the proposal would meet the requirements of policy BN.10 of the LLDC Local Plan.
4 The notional scheme by way of its form, scale and location would constitute an incongruous addition to the Sugar House Lane Conservation Area which would result in less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets and their setting. The development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Sugar House Lane Conservation Area nor the setting of the Three Mills Conservation Area. The public benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the harm identified and therefore the notional development would be contrary to the requirements of Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended), policy 7.8 of the London Plan, policies BN.10 and BN.16 of the LLDC Local Plan and the guidance within the NPPF.”