| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The nature of the application would be considered to be outside the power conferred by Section 73 (s73), given that the approved description does not include the erection of garages, therefore in accordance with Finney's judgement, the application would be contrary s73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
| 2. | Notwithstanding the above, the proposed development by reason of its scale, height, mass and in particular its siting to the front of the building line (existing and approved) would appear as an incongruous and visually intrusive feature dominating the front of the host and approved dwellings, harmful to street-scene, the amenity of adjoining neighbour and would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the building or the surrounding area within the Emerson Park contrary to Policy 26 of the Local Plan and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document Adopted 2011. |
| 3. | The proposed garages, by reason of its scale, height, mass and in particular its siting to the front of the building line (existing and approved) and the water tower, would undermine the openness to the heritage asset ensured in the approved scheme, especially when viewed from the northern side, resulting in an unjustified harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Well Tower at Tower Lodge (ref: 1358526). The development is therefore contrary to the NPPF 2023, London Plan policy HC1, Local Plan policy 28, the Heritage Supplementary Planning Document and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). |
| 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, it was 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. Notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent on 28/06/2024. |
| 5. | 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 £274,350.00. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
