| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its poor layout, result in a poor quality living environment and contrived provision of communal amenity space, in particular harmful to the amenity of future occupiers of Flat 1, including poor outlook to this single aspect unit, given its proximity to a 1.8m high boundary treatment and a 1.8m high obscure glass privacy screen that would create an undue sense of enclosure, which demonstrates the cramped nature and overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy D6 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 2. | The proposal, by reason of the scale, bulk, mass, extent of site coverage and design of the development, is considered to give rise to poor quality family accommodation (flat 3). The family unit is not easily accessible, with a lengthy and convoluted access arrangement, lack of privacy and inter-looking to the master bedroom and bedroom 2 and poor outlook and limited light to this single aspect unit, given its proximity to a 1.8m high fence and a 1.8m high obscure glass privacy screens that would create an undue sense of enclosure, which demonstrates the cramped nature and overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy D6 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of the proposed scale, form and mass of the development, its degree of site coverage and, in particular, the design and visual impact of Block A, including its height, incongruous roof form and poor arrangement of fenestration, appear as an unduly dominant and visually intrusive form of development in the streetscene, giving rise to a poor quality of development and materially harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy D4 of the London Plan and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 4. | The height and excessive depth of the privacy glass screens to both sides of the communal roof garden would be unneighbourly and appear dominant, visually intrusive and create an undue sense of enclosure in the rear garden environment harmful to the amenity of neighbouring properties, particularly No.'s 145C and 145B Rainham Road, including their rear terraces and 149 Rainham Road contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 5. | The first floor windows to Bedroom 2 and the master bedroom of Flat 3 on the rear elevation of Block B would, by reason of their position and proximity to neighbouring properties, cause overlooking and loss of privacy which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 6. | The proposed development would by reason of its height, scale, bulk, mass and siting, result in a significant loss of amenity to No. 149 Rainham Road, particularly by reason of its adverse impact on neighbouring flank habitable room windows, which would be harmful to the amenity of this neighbouring property contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan, the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 7. | The proposal fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would provide adequate parking,servicing, delivery and refuse collection arrangements for both the commercial and residential elements of the scheme. Furthermore, in the absence of a parking stress survey and a legal agreement to prevent future occupants from applying for or obtaining a residents parking permit, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the parking impacts of the development. As such the proposal is likely to result in an undesirable increase in on-street parking by users of the site and delivery vehicles and inadequate arrangements for the servicing of the site, to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity contrary to Policies 7, 23 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan, Policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 8. | 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 reason(s) for it was given to Stephensons via email on 30th September 2025. |
| 9. | For Residential Development Only
Please be advised that approval of this application from 1st September 2019 (either by London Borough of Havering, or subsequently by PINS if allowed on appeal following a refusal by London Borough of Havering) will attract a liability payment of £20,864 plus indexation in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This charge has been levied under s.206 of the Planning Act 2008 and includes both the Mayor of London's CIL and Havering Council's CIL.
London Borough of Havering, as CIL collecting authority, has responsibility for the collection of the Mayoral CIL, in addition to Havering's CIL, on commencement of the development.
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £6,520 plus indexation for the application, based on the Mayoral CIL levy rate for Havering of £25/sq.m plus Havering's charging rate for residential of £55/sq.m (Zone B) and the floorspace of 260.8 square metres.
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil |
