| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling would through its overall height, bulk and mass, development footprint, relationship to shared boundaries and design approach including concept and plot layout and arrangement appear as unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area, inconsistent with surrounding local character and existing pattern of development contrary to Policy D4 of the London Plan (2016) and Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. There would also be conflict with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that developments should function well, add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character. |
| 2. | The proposed dwelling would form a visually intrusive and overbearing feature and give rise to an increased sense of enclosure whilst also causing loss of light and overshadowing to the adjoining rear garden of 59 Kingsley Gardens detrimental to neighbouring amenity and therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD. There would also be conflict with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for future users of development. |
| 3. | The proposed development would fail to demonstrate an acceptable living environment for future occupants through failing to meet with minimum prescribed internal spacing standards. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021. There would also be conflict with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for future users of development. |
| 4. | 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 applicant's agent in writing 21-05-2021 |
| 5. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be:
The proposals would be liable for Mayoral CIL and Havering CIL:
MAYORAL CIL
£1,725 calculated at £25.00 per square metre.
HAVERING CIL
£8,625 calculated at £125.00 per square metre.
Each contribution would be subject to indexation
Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
