| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling through its design, narrow form, roof style and site layout would form an isolated, incongruous and visually cramped form of development at odds with surrounding character in an environment more familiar with subordinate outbuildings. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 10, 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 130(a) 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 dwelling would form a visually intrusive and overbearing feature on the front elevation which would be detrimental to neighbouring amenity to the house at 70 Manser Road and therefore contrary to Policies 10, 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. There would also be conflict with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. |
| 3. | The layout of the development would be inadequate resulting in substandard accommodation for future residents through lack of insufficient floor space, narrow rooms and lack of amenity space; the development gives rise to a poor quality residential environment, harmful to the amenities of the occupiers. As a result, the development would be contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate on site car parking provision due to the frontage of the site being less than 4.8m, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity and contrary to Policies 23 & 24 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and the Manual for Streets Document (March 2007). |
| 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, 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. |
| 6. | 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 £1500 (x £25 per sqm).
Havering CIL (HCIL) contribution of £7500 (x £125 per sqm)
Each contribution would be subject to indexation. |
