| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reasons of its scale, mass, roof design and external appearance appear as an unacceptably dominant, overbearing, incongruous and visually intrusive feature within the streetscene and the area, more generally be out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area to the detriment of the visual amenity of the locality contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies D1, D3 and D4 of The London Plan (2021), London Plan Housing SPG and Policies 7 and 26 of the Local Plan 2021. |
| 2. | The proposed units 10 & 12 would fail to meet the overall minimum internal floorspace standard. Further given its inadequate floor to ceiling height would give rise to sub-standard residential accommodation and would be likely to have adverse impact upon the living conditions of the future occupiers of the site, contrary to Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021), London Plan Housing SPG and Policy 7 of the Council's Local Plan 2021. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of its inadequate level of cycle parking provision, fail to make adequate provision for sustainable travel and would be contrary to the provisions of PolicyT5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 24 of the Council's Local Plan 2021. |
| 4. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London and Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the Mayoral CIL payable would be £ 1,400.00 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £7,000.00 based on calculation of £125 per square metre. Each would be subject to indexation.
Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 5. | 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. |
