| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposals would, through a close and confined relationship to the public realm as a result of the design and footprint of the building fail to demonstrate a suitable high quality living environment for future occupants through low quality private and communal amenity areas with reduced outlook from inside and outside spaces over that which would be expected in this environment thereby contrary to the objectives of London Plan Policy D6 and in doing so Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 7, 10 and the Framework (Para 135) and the contents of the Housing Design SPG. |
| 2. | The development footprint, massing and resultant site layout results in poorly defined boundaries given the varying boundary conditions. High steel railings to the north and west public facing boundary would create an inactive public frontage. The mansard roof would represent an incongruous feature in proximity to the Conservation Area. The dual roof types appear in conflict with one another and are visually overbearing when considering the relatively small building footprint. As per the Havering Characterisation Study, the proposal's poorly designed roof form fails to create a coherent roof composition and profile that contributes and reflects those of the surrounding properties. The proposals are regarded as being contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 135 of the NPPF which amongst other considerations requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 3. | The proposed development would fail to reflect prevailing character and patterns of development to the detriment of special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The mansard roof would be an incongruous feature and conflicting roof forms would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The development is therefore, contrary to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and consequently Policy 28 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. With regards to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), the level of harm to the Conservation Area is considered less than substantial, which enacts Paragraph 215. It is not considered that any heritage or public benefit would outweigh the harm identified. |
| 4. | The proposed development does not provide disabled access/a lift to serve upper level accommodation and therefore fails to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. It is not considered that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated for non-compliance, mindful also that the scheme is regarded as having other failings. The proposals are contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and Policies D5 and D7 of the London Plan. |
| 5. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, improvements required to make the proposal acceptable were negotiated with the aget in writing. The revisions involved consideration of the development and the approach to residential environment in particular amenity provision. The applicant declined to make the suggested revisions and provided a statement to support their argument which was reviewed in advance of a decision being taken. |
| 6. | 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 £14,925 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £32,835] 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. |
