| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development by reason of its scale, bulk, height and the proximity to the shared boundaries, would result in a cramped form of development which would be out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area. The proposed excessive bulk and height of the rear block would result in unacceptable impact upon the amenities of no.1 Corbridge Mews in terms of loss of sunlight to the rear garden and overbearing impact detrimental to the enjoyment of their rear garden amenity space. The excessive height and bulk of the front block would have an adverse impact on the light to habitable rooms at Jane Court to the detriment of the occupiers. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 7 and 26 of the Local Plan 2021. |
| 2. | The proposed development is of a poor quality in terms of its excessive site coverage of buildings and hard surfacing and poorly laid out amenity provision; insufficient amount of quality amenity space and the provision of play space; single aspect units with poor light with respect to the ground floor (rear block); an Urban Green Factor well below the acceptable standards, all of which would result in substandard residential accommodation and a poor living environment to the detriment of the amenity of the prospective occupiers. The proposals are contrary to the provisions of the NPPF and Policy 7 of the local plan, as well as Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards the carbon offset fund, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate in achieving sustainable measures with respect to climate change contrary to policy 36 of the Local Plan. |
| 4. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure car free development the proposal would fail to satisfactorily provide sufficient parking provision resulting in an increased parking stress in the surrounding area contrary to policy 24 of the Local Plan. |
| 5. | In the absence of a legal agreement to provide training and recruitment scheme for the local workforce during construction period, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Policy 22 Local Plan. |
| 6. | In the absence of a satisfactorily completed legal agreement means that the provision of affordable housing cannot be secured or the provision of a early and late stage review mechanism and therefore the application is contrary to policy 4 of the Local Plan. |
| 7. | 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 applicant's agent during the process of determining application. The revisions involved reduction in bulk and scale. The applicant declined to make the suggested revisions. |
| 8. | 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 £23,650 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £118,250 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. |
