| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The submitted plans are of such poor quality, are inaccurate and fail to demonstrate that a sustainable development can be achieved, contrary to the NPPF (2021). |
| 2. | Notwithstanding the inaccuracies shown on the submitted plans, the development would result in a substandard level of accommodation, by reason of some flats failing to meet the minimum internal space standards, provision of single aspect units and some of the flats having limited windows and deep floorplans resulting in insufficient daylight and poor levels of outlook. The proposals would fail to provide high quality communal amenity space and fail to provide private amenity space for the upper floor flats. The proposal would also fail to provide high quality accessible accommodation and the development is therefore contrary to Local Plan policy 7, 9 and London Plan (2021) policies D6 and D7. |
| 3. | In the absence of sufficient information it has not been demonstrated that the proposed flats would achieve a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75 per cent of their Gross Internal Area and would fail to provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupiers contrary to Local Plan Policy 7, London Plan policy D6 and the Nationally Described Space Standards (2015). |
| 4. | The proposed development would result in the loss of a dwelling suitable for family occupation with an original floor area less than 120sqm and would fail to re-provide any family sized units and the proposed dwelling mix would not comply with the Councils recommended dwelling mix. The proposals are therefore contrary to Local Plan policies 5 and 9 and London Plan policy H10. |
| 5. | Notwithstanding the inaccuracies shown on the submitted plans, the proposed rear/side and dormer roof extensions would, by reason of their detailed design, height, bulk, mass and prominent location, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the street-scene and the cumulative impact of the extensions would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host building and adjoining terrace and the surrounding area contrary to local plan policy 26. |
| 6. | The proposed layout and design of the development together with the position of the front forecourt and rear/side parking areas, absence of vehicular visibility splays and the proposed location of the extensions and external amenity areas would create an obstructive and cramped layout and would fail to provide safe, inclusive, accessible and fit for purpose access to the development for future residents contrary to policies 10, 23, 26, 27 and 35 of the Local Plan, policies D4, D5, D6, D7, D11, T2 and T4 of the London Plan (2021). |
| 7. | The application fails to demonstrate that safe on-site parking can be provided and in the absence of a detailed parking survey, insufficient and inadequate evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposals would not result in unacceptable parking stress in the surrounding highly network, and the proposed net increase of five residential units would in the absence of a legal agreement to restrict eligibility for on-street residential parking permits for future parking restrictions in the area is likely to result in unacceptable parking stress in the surrounding highly network contrary to Local Plan policies 23 and 24 and London Plan (2021) policies T2, T4, T6, and T6.1. |
| 8. | The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that adequate refuse and cycle storage could feasibly be accommodated on-site. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Local Plan policies 23, 24 and 35, and London Plan (2021) policy T5. |
| 9. | It has not been demonstrated that the living areas of new properties would not abut the bedrooms within adjoining property of No. 130 Collier Row Lane detrimental to the residential amenity of this adjoining property. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Local Plan polices 7 and 9 and London Plan policy D14. |
| 10. | 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. |
| 11. | 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 £3825 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £19,125 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. |
