| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed side and rear extension would, by reason of its excessive depth, height and position close to the boundaries of the site, be a visually intrusive development harmful to the character of the street scene as well as having an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its height, bulk and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 and Policy DC69 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | Notwithstanding reason for refusal 1 and 2, the submitted application has presented a number of discrepancies relating to the retention of the existing dwelling and accuracy of the plans submitted.
The plans as submitted do not show that the existing dwelling will be retained and do no accurately represent current site conditions in terms of location of existing trees and form and scale of the existing dwelling.
The applicant has not clearly identified the location of all proposed rear elevation windows on the elevation and floor plan and the roof form along the south eastern corner of the principal elevation and adjacent to the shared property boundary does not correspond to the submitted ground floor plan.
As such, the identified discrepancies in both the existing and proposed drawings and the failure to provide an indication of the retained dwelling in the submitted the plans, inhibit the ability of the Local Planning Authority to make a full and proper assessment of the proposal against the
· The National Planning Policy Framework
· The London Borough of Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD
· The London Borough of Havering Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD
· The London Borough of Havering Emerson Park Policy Area SPD
· The London Borough of Havering Protection of Tress During Development SPD |
| 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to The applicant's agent, via email 12 October 2018. |
| 5. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be £13356. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
