| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development, by reason of the bulk, scale and massing specifically, the inclusion of an expansive, continuous, full-width rear box dormer across all three units fails to appear subordinate or sympathetic to the primary roof slope. The design creates the uncharacteristic appearance of a top-heavy, three-storey flat-roofed block when viewed from the rear, resulting in a bulky and dominant roof form that compromises the visual cohesion of the residential area, contrary to paragraph 135(d) of the NPPF which requires developments to establish or maintain a strong sense of place, Local Plan Policies 7 and 26 and Policy D4 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The gross internal areas of the proposed dwellings, including that of their second bedrooms, would fall below the minimum requirements set out in Policy D6 of the London Plan. Furthermore, the dwellings would not provide accessible storage space or comply with the minimum floor-to-ceiling heights standards set out in Policy D6. Consequently, the proposed development would fail to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers, contrary to paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF which requires developments to have a high standard of amenity for future users, Local Plan Policy 7 and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed site and frontage layout represents a cramped and poorly engineered over-development of the plot, squeezing parking provision into narrow frontages forces vehicles into direct conflict with primary pedestrian pathways. Furthermore, the constraint of the site layout results in a substandard parking provision below the 1.5 spaces per unit standard required by Policy 24, while simultaneously forcing the positioning of a new vehicle crossover within 1.5m of a public street lamp column contrary to domestic highway delivery protocols. The cumulative impact of this constrained layout produces a car-dominated street interface lacking adequate soft landscaping, indicating a clear over-development of the site contrary to Local Plan Policies 24 and 26 and would be to the detriment of the amenity of existing and future residents, contrary to Paragraph 193(a) of the NPPF. |
| 4. | In the absence of a Preliminary Roost Assessment, insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application for the ecological impacts of the proposed developments to be assessed, contrary to Policies 10 and 27 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy G7 of the London Plan 2021. |
| 5. | 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 £4,100 (x £25 per sqm).
Havering CIL (HCIL) contribution of £20,500 (x £125 per sqm)
Each contribution would be subject to indexation. |
| 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 was given to the agent via email on 19/06/2026. |
