| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal would result in an inappropriate form of development in a rear garden location, appearing cramped, contrived, and out of keeping with the pattern of development along High Elms and Front Lane. The development would materially harm the character of the area, contrary to Policies 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy D3 of the London Plan paragraphs 124, 130 and 135 of the NPPF. |
| 2. | The proposal, by reason of the restricted size of the plot, its relationship to neighbouring properties and confined and cramped location, given its location, proximity to boundaries and the potential height, scale and massing would likely result in an intrusive form of development, increased sense of enclosure and potential loss of privacy to immediate adjoining neighbours, especially no. 125 Front Lane and no. 23 Marlborough Close. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies 7 and 10 of the Havering Local Plan and paragraphs 130 and 135 of the NPPF. |
| 3. | The proposed development is situated on a section of High Elms that does not benefit from any dedicated pedestrian footway, resulting in pedestrians being required to walk within the carriageway. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users, including prospective residents and visitors. Furthermore the proposal does not benefit from adequate provision of car parking. As such, the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable impact on pedestrian safety,as well as likely increased demand for on street car parking and consequent adverse impact on the functioning of the highway, contrary to Policies 23 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan (2016-2031), Policy T6.1 of the London Plan (2021), and paragraphs 110-112 of the NPPF. |
| 4. | The application provides no meaningful landscaping strategy or biodiversity enhancements and does not demonstrate how the proposal would achieve environmental net gains or compensate for the loss of existing garden space. Due to the constrained site, it is unclear whether any soft landscaping or biodiversity improvements could be incorporated.
The proposal is contrary to Policy 30 of the Havering Local Plan and the NPPF 2024. |
| 5. | The proposal would be liable for contributions under CIL Regulations for both MCIL and HCIL based on any net increase in residential floor area. The liability would be considered further at Reserved Matters stage when the scale of development is confirmed. |
| 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, it was necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application. |
