| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its excessive site coverage height, bulk, and proximity to boundaries, would appear visually intrusive and out of character with the surrounding two-storey residential context, contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024, policies D1, D3 and D4 of The London Plan 2021, London Plan Housing SPG and Policy 7 and 26 of the Local Plan 2021. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, due to the constraints of the site in conjunction with the site coverage and the design approach result in habitable rooms immediately adjacent to the existing Parkside Court car park, having inadequate outlook and poor aspect, in particular those on the northeastern side of the development, as well as the development providing insufficient communal amenity space, lack of child play space, non-functional northeastern private amenity space and lacks a robust strategy for mitigating noise impacts, the layout would result in substandard residential accommodation to the detriment of the amenity of the prospective occupiers, in direct contrast to the aims of London Plan policies D6 and D14, and Local Plan policies 1, 3 and 26. |
| 3. | The proposed in-and-out vehicular access directly onto a major junction would create unacceptable highway safety risks and hinder safe service and delivery operations. The arrangement would increase conflict points for vehicles and other road users. Furthermore, the provision of six car parking spaces for the scale of development is considered inadequate and would likely result in overspill parking on surrounding streets, exacerbating congestion and safety concerns, contrary to the NPPF, London Plan Policies T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T7, Policy 24 of the Havering Local Plan. |
| 4. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the necessary planning obligations, including but not limited to an affordable housing late stage review, carbon offset contribution, employment skills and training, residential travel plan, play space contribution, parking permit restrictions, and monitoring and legal fees, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the impacts of the development on local infrastructure, services, and the environment. As such, the development is contrary to Policy DF1 of the London Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the requirements of the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Planning Obligations SPD. |
| 5. | The proposed development would, by reason of its design and layout, establish a built form which would restrict the future redevelopment of neighbouring plots and prejudice the comprehensive redevelopment of the adjoining sites. The development would therefore give rise to poor quality isolated and piecemeal development which would undermine the wider aspirations for the site and surrounding area contrary to London Plan Policies D2, D3 and H1, and Local Plan Policies 1, 3 and 7. |
| 6. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for both the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the Havering Council's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) . Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be a total £214,050.00. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 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, and the reasons for refusal have already been highlighted as concerns at pre-application stage and given to the agent in the course of the application. It was therefore necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application. |
