| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its cramped nature within the plot, close proximity to the shared boundaries and incongruous roof form, fascade design and arrangement of fenestration, appear as an incongruous and visually cramped form of development that would be at odds with the established design of dwellings along Shelley Avenue and therefore harmful to the character and appearance of the locality, contrary to Local Plan Policies 7, 10 and 26 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 dwelling, by reason of its height, bulk, mass and proximity to the boundary of the site with no. 29 Shelley Avenue, forms a visually intrusive and overbearing feature from adjacent rear garden of no. 29 Shelley Avenue and therefore would be detrimental to the amenity of the occupier of this neighbouring property, contrary to Local Plan Policies 7 and 10. 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 occupiers. |
| 3. | The proposed development is considered to result in a poor arrangement of parking space for the donor dwelling which is unlikely to be practically suitable for use by its occupants through obstructing and adversely affecting accessibility to the integral garage and parking area of the neighbouring property at No. 31. Shelley Avenue, compromising day to day functionality and leading to a poor quality living environment and potential harm to the functioning of the highway, contrary to the provisions of Policy D5 of the London Plan and Policies 7 and 24 of the Local Plan. |
| 4. | 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 £1,425 (x £25 per sqm).
Havering CIL (HCIL) contribution of £7,125 (x £125 per sqm)
Each contribution would be subject to indexation. |
| 5. | Were the outcome of this application to be the subject of an appeal, the Planning Inspectorate should note that there are significant disreprancies between the submitted plans and the actual layout of the site based on the GIS mapping software available to the Local Planning Authority. |
| 6. | The applicant has stated that the proposed development is exempt from Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Requirements as it qualifies as a self-build/custom build project as defined in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 and is reminded that deviating from that definition will invalidate that exemption, which could lead to enforcement action by the local planning authority. |
| 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, notification of intended refusal was given to the agent via email on 03/07/2025. |
