| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development, by reason of its bulk, height, massing and proximity to the northern boundary of the site, would result in a cramped form of development that would appear as visually intrusive and incongruous within the plot, something which would adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene and visual amenity of the locality. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Local Plan 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 development, by reason of the size of House 4A amenity space and the proximity of this dwellinghouse to the northern boundary of the site, would give rise to a poor quality development and substandard living conditions to the detriment of the amenity of the future occupiers through providing a small and cramped amenity area that would be insufficient for the occupants of a 2-bedroom dwelling constraint outlook from its kitchen area, contrary to the provisions of Policy D6 of the London Plan, Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and Paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. |
| 3. | The proposed development, by reason of its bulk, height, massing and proximity to the shared boundary of the site with no. 91 Great Gardens Road, would form a visually intrusive and overbearing feature from the rear garden of this neighbouring property resulting in loss of outlook and an increased sense of enclosure, something which would be to the detriment to the amenity of these neighbouring occupants contrary to Policies 7 and 10 of the Local Plan. 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 and future occupiers. |
| 4. | Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application for the ecological impacts of the proposed development to be assessed, contrary to Policies 10 and 30 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy G7 of the London Plan and paragraph 193(d) of the NPPF. |
| 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 £4,450 (x £25 per sqm).
Havering CIL (HCIL) contribution of £22,250 (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 and the reasons for it was given to the agent in writing 18/09/2025. |
