| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | In the absence of marketing evidence to clearly demonstrate that the existing public house is not viable, the proposal would result in the loss of a public house and a community facility contrary to Policy 16 of the Havering Local Plan and Policies HC7 and S1 of the London Plan 2021. |
| 2. | The first floor unit fails to meet the overall minimum floorspace and bedroom standard, and would not provide at least one twin bedroom and a living/dining within this large 4 beroom family unit. In addition, given its very constrained site with no boundary details, the ground floor layout would result in loss of privacy to a bedroom within flat 1, with limited outlook and light to flat 2 which would give rise to sub-standard residential accommodation and would be likely to have an adverse impact upon the living conditions of the future occupiers of the units, 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 fourteen car parking spaces for the proposed mixed use, would exceed the maximum car parking provision contrary to the aim of the Mayor to reduce car use. In the absence of disabled parking spaces, electric charging point and details of deliveries and servicing, the proposals would be harmful to highway and pedestrian safety contrary to Policies 23 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan and Policies T4, T6.1 and T6.3 of the London Plan 2021. |
| 4. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy and Havering CIL. Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be £9,750 . 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. |
