| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its height, bulk and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden scene harmful to visual amenity and to the appearance and open character of the surrounding area, contrary to Local Plan policy 26. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its position and proximity to neighbouring properties cause loss of privacy which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of both future and adjacent residents, contrary to Local Plan policies 7 and 10 and London Plan policy D6. |
| 3. | The 1B2P dwelling (42sqm) would fall below the minimum internal floor space of 50sqm required to comply with table 3.1 of the London Plan; and by reason of its unacceptable access arrangements would fail to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers of this dwelling contrary to Local Plan policy 7 and London Plan policy D6. |
| 4. | 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. |
| 5. | The development would result in an overprovision of general car parking and would exceed the maximum parking standards set out in the London Plan failing to promote sustainable travel and reduce car dominance and act as a discouragement to using public transport. The proposals are contrary to Local Plan Policy 24 and London Plan (2021) policies T2, T6 and T6.1. |
| 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 by email on the 22-06-22. |
| 7. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London and Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the Mayoral CIL payable would be £1,050 based on the calculation of ?£25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of ?£5,250 based on calculation of ?£125 per square metre. Each would be subject to indexation.
Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
