| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed change of use and subdivision of the existing dwellinghouse is unacceptable in principle as the proposal would fail to re-provide a minimum of one family unit of 3 or more bedrooms and the proposed scheme is therefore contrary to Local Plan (2021) policies 5 and 9. |
| 2. | In the absence of sufficient supporting information, it has not been demonstrated that the site is appropriate for its intended uses and that the proposed Class F1(a), F1(f), F2(b),E(g)(i) uses would not unacceptably harm the amenities of the area through noise, disturbance, traffic generation, congestion, local parking and negative impacts on road safety. Therefore the proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers and to the area in general contrary to Local Plan (2021) policies 7, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24 and 34 and London Plan (2021) Policies D14, S1, S3 and E1. |
| 3. | The proposed second floor flat would fail to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers by reason of having shared access, no private amenity space and due to the position and size of its fenestration it would have poor outlook and receive insufficient levels of daylight, and in the absence of section plans it has not been demonstrated that a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5m could be achieved for at least 75 per cent of its gross internal floor area. The proposals are therefore contrary to Local Plan (2021) policy 7 and London Plan (2021) policies D5 and D6. |
| 4. | The proposed rear extensions and roof extensions by reason of their excessive bulk, scale, height, massing and inappropriate design would result in a cumulative bulky and overwhelming addition to the host dwelling that would be out of scale with both the adjoining property and other properties in the area and unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings. Therefore the proposals would appear visually dominant within the area and fail to compliment or improve the visual amenity and character of the area detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property, its pair of No. 23 and be materially harmful to the visual amenity of the surrounding area contrary to Local Plan policy 26. |
| 5. | In the absence of a tree site survey and an arboricultural method statement it has not been demonstrated that trees of significant amenity value would be retained and that retained trees on the site and on adjoining land would be satisfactorily protected from construction impacts and site works during development stage. As such the proposals are contrary to Local Plan policy 27 and London Plan policy G7. |
| 6. | In the absence of detailed elevation plans, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed outbuilding and its ancillary canopy, by reason of their siting, height, bulk and detailed design and location in this garden, would not appear visually dominant or out of keeping with the surrounding area or harm the amenities of adjoining occupiers contrary to Local Plan policies 7 and 26. |
| 7. | In the absence of detailed and accurate elevation plans, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed front extension would, by reason of its height, depth, width and its design within the front boundary of the site, would not detrimentally affect the character of the house and its immediate surroundings or have an adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021). |
| 8. | 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 the Agent by email on the 12/05/22. |
