| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The dormer would form an incongruous feature in the street-scene and would be conspicuous through its lack of spacing, design and scale which fails to take into account the character of the terraced row and the street scene generally, and it would present as visually cramped within the site and prominent in the street scene. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also 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 loft conversion would lead to the creation of a 2-bedrom flat which would fail to meet the standard of a minimum of 70 square metres floor area for a 2-bedroom, 2-storey flat. It is considered that the proposed development would result in a poor quality living environment for future occupiers, resulting in substandard residential accommodation to the detriment of the amenity of future occupants of this proposed dwelling. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed external access staircase and elevated landing, by reason of its height, position, and close proximity to the shared boundary, would result in direct, unneighbourly, and intrusive overlooking into the upper-floor habitable room window of the adjoining property to the right (when viewed from the rear). This would cause a significant and unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of the adjacent property, contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy D6 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 4. | 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. |
