| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its height, depth, projection beyond the neighbouring dwelling and position close to the boundaries of the site, be an intrusive and unneighbourly development, to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupants of Nos. 27 and 29 Woodlands Avenue, Hornchurch, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | For Residential Development Only
Please be advised that approval of this application from 1st September 2019 (either by London Borough of Havering, or subsequently by PINS if allowed on appeal following a refusal by London Borough of Havering) will attract a liability payment of £47,250 plus indexation in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This charge has been levied under s.206 of the Planning Act 2008 and includes both the Mayor of London's CIL and Havering Council's CIL.
London Borough of Havering, as CIL collecting authority, has responsibility for the collection of the Mayoral CIL, in addition to Havering's CIL, on commencement of the development.
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £7,875 plus indexation for the application, based on the Mayoral CIL levy rate for Havering of £25/sq.m plus Havering's charging rate for residential of £125/sq.m (Zone A) and the floorspace of 315 square metres.
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil |
| 3. | 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 2018, improvements required to make the proposal acceptable were negotiated with Bluelime (Mr Radu & Ms Hanspal) by phone and e-mail. The revisions involved lessening the impact of the proposal on the adjacent residents due to projection beyond neighbours and height close to the boundaries. The applicant declined to make the suggested revisions. |
