| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development, by reason of its bulk, height, massing and proximity to the side/rear boundary with no. 2a New Zealand Way, would result in a cramped form of development that would appear as visually intrusive and incongruous within the plot, something which would be exacerbated by its hipped roof design and continuous rear dormer, adversely affecting the character and appearance of the street and rear garden scene and visual amenity of the locality. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Local Plan as well as Paragraph 135(d) of the NPPF which requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 2. | The proposed development, by reason of its inadequate internal floor to ceiling heights and lack of dual aspect to main habitable ground floor room would give rise to a poor quality development and substandard living conditions to the detriment of the amenity of the future occupiers, contrary to the provisions of Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policy 7 of the Local Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed development, by reason of its proximity to the common boundary with no. 2a New Zealand Way, would form a visually intrusive and overbearing feature from the rear and rear garden of this neighbouring property which would result in a loss of outlook and an increased sense of enclosure to the detriment to the amenity of its neighbouring occupants, contrary to Policies 7 and 10 of the Local Plan. There would also be conflict with paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. |
| 4. | The proposed development is considered to result in a poor arrangement of parking space for the donor dwelling which is unlikely to be desirable or practically suitable for use by its occupants through obstructing and adversely affecting accessibility to the property, compromising day to day functionality and leading to a poor quality living environment, contrary to the provisions of Policy D5 of the London Plan and Policies 7 and 24 of the Local Plan. |
| 5. | Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would be capable of meeting the definition of a self-build development and consequently that the proposal would benefit from the relevant exemption from mandatory BNG requirements, contrary to Schedule 7A (Biodiversity Gain in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
| 6. | In the event that this application is allowed through the appeals process, the proposals would be liable for the following CIL contributions:
Mayoral CIL (MCIL2) contribution of £2,700 (x £25 per sqm).
Havering CIL (HCIL) contribution of £13,500 (x £125 per sqm)
Each contribution would be subject to indexation. |
| 7. | Were the outcome of this application to be the subject of an appeal, the Planning Inspectorate should note that the part of the application site appears to encroach on the curtilage of no. 2a New Zealand Way. |
| 8. | 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 the agent in writing 06/06/2025. |
