| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed developments, by reason of their proximity to the common boundaries of the site, their orientation and design, would result in a cramped form of development that would not reflect the prevailing architectural character of dwellings along Hawthorn Avenue and instead appear as a visually intrusive and incongruous feature within the plot that adversely affects the character and appearance of the street scene and visual amenity of the locality. The proposed developments would therefore be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Local Plan as well as Paragraph 135(d) of the NPPF which requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 2. | The proposed developments, by reason of their proximity to the western boundary of the site, would result in poor outlook and limited light to the living room windows of House B, which would give rise to a poor quality development and substandard living conditions to the detriment of the amenity of the future occupiers, contrary to the provisions of Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policy 7 of the Local Plan. There would also be conflict with paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for future occupiers. |
| 3. | The proposed developments, by reason of their bulk, scale, height and proximity to the south-eastern and western boundaries, would form a visually intrusive and overbearing feature within the rear garden environments of nos. 36 and 37 Hawthorn Avenue and thereby result in a loss of outlook and an increased sense of enclosure which would detrimental to the amenity of these neighbouring occupants. Furthermore, the orientation of the dwellings combined with their proximity to the site's western boundary would result in direct overlooking and loss of privacy to the rear garden environments of nos. 35 and 36 Hawthorn Avenue. Consequently, the proposed developments would be contrary to Policies 7 and 10 of the Local Plan and there would also be conflict with paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing occupiers. |
| 4. | In the event that this application is allowed through the appeals process, the proposals would be liable for the following CIL contributions:
Mayoral CIL (MCIL2) contribution of £3,950 (x £25 per sqm).
Havering CIL (HCIL) contribution of £19,750 (x £125 per sqm)
Each contribution would be subject to indexation. |
| 5. | Were the outcome of this application to be the subject of an appeal, the Planning Inspectorate should note that the applicant would need to seek separate permission from Dovers Farm Estates Limited for access over land to the rear of the site in Stirling Close in for the proposed access to the dwellings to be utilised. |
| 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 reasons for it was given to the agent in writing 25/06/2025. |
