| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of a lack of private amenity space provision for Flat 1, be harmful to the amenity of future occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, the Design for Living Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The proposed layout of the development would be inadequate resulting in substandard accommodation for future residents through no pedestrian front entrance to the flats. Future occupiers would need to enter the site from Boundary Road and access the rear of the building via an undercroft, which would be impractical, convoluted and would not adhere to Secured by Design principles, detrimental to future residential amenity and contrary to Policies DC3, DC61 and DC63 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document and Policies D6 and D11 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed building would, by reason of its form, scale, mass, lack of an active frontage and articulation, poor design, materiality and position close the front boundary of the site, appear incongruous, visually intrusive, unduly bulky and out of character in the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Polices Development Plan Document and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 4. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure £5,000 for the Council to implement the parking restrictions, the proposal is contrary to Policies DC32 and DC72 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Polices Development Plan Document, Policy DF1 of the London Plan and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 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 Arcady Architects via email on 17th May 2021. |
| 6. | For Residential Development Only
Please be advised that approval of this application from 1st September 2019 (either by London Borough of Havering, or subsequently by PINS if allowed on appeal following a refusal by London Borough of Havering) will attract a liability payment of £29,998.50 plus indexation in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This charge has been levied under s.206 of the Planning Act 2008 and includes both the Mayor of London's CIL and Havering Council's CIL.
London Borough of Havering, as CIL collecting authority, has responsibility for the collection of the Mayoral CIL, in addition to Havering's CIL, on commencement of the development.
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £4,999.75 plus indexation for the application, based on the Mayoral CIL levy rate for Havering of ????£25/sq.m plus Havering's charging rate for residential of ????£125/sq.m (Zone A) and the floorspace of 199.99 square metres.
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil |
