| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The original dwelling had a gross internal floor space of approximately 98 square metres, which fails to meet the standard of 120 square metres, thereby resulting in the unacceptable loss of a much needed larger family homes within the Borough, contrary to Policy 8(i) of the Havering Local Plan 2021. |
| 2. | The development by reason of its housing typology, the siting of the property and the nature of the use as a large HMO with high prospective occupancy would result in significantly higher levels of comings / goings and intensive activity over and above that of a single dwelling house resulting in a detrimental impact to the amenity of adjoining residents from noise and disturbance associated. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies 8 and 34 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. For the reasons given it is not considered that this could be overcome through a restrictive condition. |
| 3. | Officers consider that the two storey side extension as proposed through its scale, bulk and mass and proximity to the side boundary would present as visually cramped and this would exacerbate its visual impacts forward of the building line of premises to the rear and contribute to it a visually dominant feature detrimental to the spacious character that exists presently. Accordingly the development fails to comply with the design guidance set out in the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD, the objectives of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 at Policy 26 and the Framework, specifically Para 135 which requires development to be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area. |
| 4. | The installation of the crossover as proposed through its proximity to the junction would be detrimental to highway safety. The high prospective occupancy (11 persons based on room sizes) of the proposed HMO is such that there is no certainty that vehicle ownership would not be high and that this would not contribute unacceptably to existing levels of parking stress or movement to and from the site. The absence of any compelling evidence otherwise, such as a parking stress survey means that the applicant has not demonstrated that there would not be conflict with Policy 8, London Plan T6 and Para 115 of the Framework. |
| 5. | The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the works could be accomplished without harm to either of the street-trees present, in particular that of the tree in Norwood Avenue. Nor has any evidence been presented which would justify its removal. The absence of one or both of those trees would in the opinion of officers be detrimental to the street-scene as such planting makes a positive contribution and has public amenity value. On this basis there is considered to be conflict with Local Plan Policies 27 and 30, as well as the objectives of the Framework (Para 136). |
| 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 reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 26-04-2024 |
