| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed replacement building would be materially larger than the original dwelling house, well removed from the concept and massing of the dwelling allowed through P0819.18. Through its resultant scale, bulk and mass the proposed replacement dwelling would be inappropriate development and would not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021. There are no VSC which outweigh the harm of inappropriateness and the development is accordingly unacceptable in principle. |
| 2. | The proposed replacement building would be materially larger than the original dwelling house, well removed from the concept and massing of the dwelling allowed through P0819.18. Through its resultant scale, bulk and mass the proposed replacement dwelling would be inappropriate development and would not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021. There are no VSC which outweigh the harm of inappropriateness and the development is accordingly unacceptable in principle. |
| 3. | The proposed replacement building would be materially larger than the original dwelling house, well removed from the concept and massing of the dwelling allowed through P0819.18. Through its resultant scale, bulk and mass the proposed replacement dwelling would be inappropriate development and would not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021. There are no VSC which outweigh the harm of inappropriateness and the development is accordingly unacceptable in principle. |
| 4. | The proposed replacement building would be materially larger than the original dwelling house, well removed from the concept and massing of the dwelling allowed through P0819.18. Through its resultant scale, bulk and mass the proposed replacement dwelling would be inappropriate development and would not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021. There are no VSC which outweigh the harm of inappropriateness and the development is accordingly unacceptable in principle. |
| 5. | The proposed replacement building would be materially larger than the original dwelling house, well removed from the concept and massing of the dwelling allowed through P0819.18. Through its resultant scale, bulk and mass the proposed replacement dwelling would be inappropriate development and would not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021. There are no VSC which outweigh the harm of inappropriateness and the development is accordingly unacceptable in principle. |
| 6. | The proposed replacement building would be materially larger than the original dwelling house, well removed from the concept and massing of the dwelling allowed through P0819.18. Through its resultant scale, bulk and mass the proposed replacement dwelling would be inappropriate development and would not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021. There are no VSC which outweigh the harm of inappropriateness and the development is accordingly unacceptable in principle. |
| 7. | The proposed replacement building would be materially larger than the original dwelling house, well removed from the concept and massing of the dwelling allowed through P0819.18. Through its resultant scale, bulk and mass the proposed replacement dwelling would be inappropriate development and would not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021. There are no VSC which outweigh the harm of inappropriateness and the development is accordingly unacceptable in principle. |
| 8. | Para 155(a) requires consideration as to whether the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan - specifically a, b and d of Para 143. It is the view of officers that through being materially larger that the development would contribute to urban sprawl on the Green Belt, there is then conflict with 143(a). Further to this there would be the low PTAL rating of 0 for the site is suggestive of the site not being in a sustainable location which would conflict with Para 155(c). The 'Golden Rules' set out at Paragraph 156/157 of the Framework do not need to be applied as the definition of major development given by the Framework is not met. The development is regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. |
| 9. | Para 155(a) requires consideration as to whether the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan - specifically a, b and d of Para 143. It is the view of officers that through being materially larger that the development would contribute to urban sprawl on the Green Belt, there is then conflict with 143(a). Further to this there would be the low PTAL rating of 0 for the site is suggestive of the site not being in a sustainable location which would conflict with Para 155(c). The 'Golden Rules' set out at Paragraph 156/157 of the Framework do not need to be applied as the definition of major development given by the Framework is not met. The development is regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. |
| 10. | Para 155(a) requires consideration as to whether the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan - specifically a, b and d of Para 143. It is the view of officers that through being materially larger that the development would contribute to urban sprawl on the Green Belt, there is then conflict with 143(a). Further to this there would be the low PTAL rating of 0 for the site is suggestive of the site not being in a sustainable location which would conflict with Para 155(c). The 'Golden Rules' set out at Paragraph 156/157 of the Framework do not need to be applied as the definition of major development given by the Framework is not met. The development is regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. |
| 11. | Para 155(a) requires consideration as to whether the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan - specifically a, b and d of Para 143. It is the view of officers that through being materially larger that the development would contribute to urban sprawl on the Green Belt, there is then conflict with 143(a). Further to this there would be the low PTAL rating of 0 for the site is suggestive of the site not being in a sustainable location which would conflict with Para 155(c). The 'Golden Rules' set out at Paragraph 156/157 of the Framework do not need to be applied as the definition of major development given by the Framework is not met. The development is regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. |
| 12. | Para 155(a) requires consideration as to whether the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan - specifically a, b and d of Para 143. It is the view of officers that through being materially larger that the development would contribute to urban sprawl on the Green Belt, there is then conflict with 143(a). Further to this there would be the low PTAL rating of 0 for the site is suggestive of the site not being in a sustainable location which would conflict with Para 155(c). The 'Golden Rules' set out at Paragraph 156/157 of the Framework do not need to be applied as the definition of major development given by the Framework is not met. The development is regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. |
| 13. | Para 155(a) requires consideration as to whether the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan - specifically a, b and d of Para 143. It is the view of officers that through being materially larger that the development would contribute to urban sprawl on the Green Belt, there is then conflict with 143(a). Further to this there would be the low PTAL rating of 0 for the site is suggestive of the site not being in a sustainable location which would conflict with Para 155(c). The 'Golden Rules' set out at Paragraph 156/157 of the Framework do not need to be applied as the definition of major development given by the Framework is not met. The development is regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. |
| 14. | Para 155(a) requires consideration as to whether the development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan - specifically a, b and d of Para 143. It is the view of officers that through being materially larger that the development would contribute to urban sprawl on the Green Belt, there is then conflict with 143(a). Further to this there would be the low PTAL rating of 0 for the site is suggestive of the site not being in a sustainable location which would conflict with Para 155(c). The 'Golden Rules' set out at Paragraph 156/157 of the Framework do not need to be applied as the definition of major development given by the Framework is not met. The development is regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. |
| 15. | The resultant dwelling through its scale, bulk and mass would form a visually dominant feature out of scale and keeping with the surrounding built environment. It would fail to respect the existing grain of the area and would therefore neither reflect existing local character and patterns of development, nor introduce positive new character. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 135 of the NPPF which amongst other considerations requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 16. | The resultant dwelling through its scale, bulk and mass would form a visually dominant feature out of scale and keeping with the surrounding built environment. It would fail to respect the existing grain of the area and would therefore neither reflect existing local character and patterns of development, nor introduce positive new character. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 135 of the NPPF which amongst other considerations requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 17. | The resultant dwelling through its scale, bulk and mass would form a visually dominant feature out of scale and keeping with the surrounding built environment. It would fail to respect the existing grain of the area and would therefore neither reflect existing local character and patterns of development, nor introduce positive new character. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 135 of the NPPF which amongst other considerations requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 18. | The resultant dwelling through its scale, bulk and mass would form a visually dominant feature out of scale and keeping with the surrounding built environment. It would fail to respect the existing grain of the area and would therefore neither reflect existing local character and patterns of development, nor introduce positive new character. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 135 of the NPPF which amongst other considerations requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 19. | The resultant dwelling through its scale, bulk and mass would form a visually dominant feature out of scale and keeping with the surrounding built environment. It would fail to respect the existing grain of the area and would therefore neither reflect existing local character and patterns of development, nor introduce positive new character. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 135 of the NPPF which amongst other considerations requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 20. | The resultant dwelling through its scale, bulk and mass would form a visually dominant feature out of scale and keeping with the surrounding built environment. It would fail to respect the existing grain of the area and would therefore neither reflect existing local character and patterns of development, nor introduce positive new character. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 135 of the NPPF which amongst other considerations requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 21. | The resultant dwelling through its scale, bulk and mass would form a visually dominant feature out of scale and keeping with the surrounding built environment. It would fail to respect the existing grain of the area and would therefore neither reflect existing local character and patterns of development, nor introduce positive new character. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 135 of the NPPF which amongst other considerations requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 22. | 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 15-10-2025. |
| 23. | 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 15-10-2025. |
| 24. | 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 15-10-2025. |
| 25. | 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 15-10-2025. |
| 26. | 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 15-10-2025. |
| 27. | 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 15-10-2025. |
| 28. | 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 15-10-2025. |
| 29. | 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 £3673.25 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £18,366.25 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. |
| 30. | 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 £3673.25 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £18,366.25 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. |
| 31. | 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 £3673.25 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £18,366.25 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. |
| 32. | 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 £3673.25 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £18,366.25 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. |
| 33. | 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 £3673.25 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £18,366.25 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. |
| 34. | 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 £3673.25 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £18,366.25 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. |
| 35. | 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 £3673.25 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £18,366.25 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. |
