| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its layout, fail to provide adequately designed off-street parking, and would through parking displacement have an unacceptable impact on parking on the road, as well as highway safety. The development would fail to integrate into the existing site and the area more generally, and is unacceptable when assessed against policy 6.13 and 6.9 of the London Plan MALP 2016, and policies DC33, DC35, DC61 and DC62 of the Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008. |
| 2. | The proposed development would by reason of its size, bulk, position and inappropriate design fail to integrate into the existing site and respect the character of the area more generally, and would be unacceptable when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, policies 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2016 (MALP), draft London Plan policy D4 and D8, and policies CP17, DC61 and DC68 of the Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008 and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD 2011, and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of inappropriate design in an area that has several road hazards, have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and would likely add to an existing hazardous road layout. The proposed development is therefore unacceptable when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 [as amended], policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2016 (MALP), and policies CP10, DC32 and DC33 of the Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008, |
| 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, and that no minor changes to the scheme could overcome the inherent issues with the scheme, it was considered expedient to issue a decision within statutory timeframes as opposed to seeking amendments and perpetually extending the deadline. |
