| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development, having regards to its cumulative scale, width, bulk and massing (including that of the proposed rear dormer window) as well as fenestration design, would be materially out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development along Lytton Road and therefore result in a dominant, visually intrusive and overbearing piece of development within the streetscene, contrary to Local Plan Policies 7 and 26, Policy D4 of the London Plan and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 2. | The proposed development, by reason of its height, would be an intrusive and unneighbourly development that would have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjacent occupiers at no. 11 Lytton Road, Romford through resulting in a wall of development that would have a dominant and overbearing impact on these neighbours and result in a loss of light and loss of outlook, contrary to Policy 7 of the Local Plan and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 3. | The proposed development, by reason of its height and proximity to the shared rear boundary of the application site, would form a visually intrusive and overbearing feature from adjacent rear garden of no. 20 Clive Road, which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of these adjacent occupiers, contrary to Policy 7 of the Local Plan and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 4. | Insufficient information has been submitted to determine the impact of the proposed developments on trees in close proximity to the site. The submission fails to provide details of trees within and near to the application site or explain how trees would be impacted by the proposed development, contrary to Policy 27 of the Havering Local Plan. |
| 5. | The proposed vehicle crossover, by reason of its proximity to the junction with Hastings Road, would result in an unsatisfactory parking arrangement which would be detrimental to safety of pedestrians and other road users, contrary to Local Plan Policy 24. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the vehicle crossover could be implemented without harm to the existing street tree located to the front of the application site and on that basis, there would also be conflict with Local Plan Policies 27 and 30. |
| 6. | In the event that this application is allowed through the appeals process, the proposals would be liable for the following CIL contributions:
Havering CIL (MCIL2) contribution of £18,875 (x £25 per sqm).
Mayoral CIL (HCIL) contribution of £3,775 (x £125 per sqm)
Each contribution would be subject to indexation. |
| 7. | 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 Asad Durani (Agent) via email on 03/07/2025. |
