| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, bulk, mass and siting, and the impact on the health and longevity of the protected oak trees would both encroach on an open space harmful to the open and spacious character of the streetscene and significantly reduce the verdant character in this part of Hornchurch Road contrary to Policies DC60 and DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its severely restricted outlook to the rear due to the presence and proximity of the large protected oak trees - T2 and T3 and the amenity space would be heavily shaded due to the position of tree T2, which would limit the establishment and functionality of any garden space harmful to amenity of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling and contrary to Policies DC4 and DC61 of Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Design for Living Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 3. | The proposed development would by reason of its scale and siting, combined with the proposed works to trees as set out in Drawing No. 02 Revision A and the applicant's Tree Survey result in future pressure for the removal of the oak trees (T2 and T3) protected by TPO 8/99. The consequent reduction in the public amenity value of the trees would be unduly harmful to the verdant character of this part of Hornchurch Road such that it would adversely affect the visual amenity of the streetscene contrary to Policies DC60 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Protection of Trees during Development Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 4. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards the demand for school places arising from the development, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the infrastructure impact of the development, contrary to the provisions of Policies DC29 and DC72 of the Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan. |
| 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 Mr Greaves via email on 12th April 2017. |
| 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 CIL payable would be £1,820 . Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
