| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed roof alterations, due to their excessive height, bulk, and flat-roofed design, would appear as an overbearing and incongruous feature within the streetscape and rear environment. Its scale and massing fail to respect the established character of Collier Row Road, resulting in harm to the visual amenity of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan, and the NPPF. |
| 2. | The proposed development fails to provide private amenity space for the first and second-floor units, which are intended as family accommodation. Additionally, no section drawings have been submitted to confirm adequate floor-to-ceiling heights. As a result, the scheme would deliver substandard residential accommodation, adversely affecting the living conditions of future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed development, by reason of its increased height and massing close to the shared boundary, would result in an overbearing impact and loss of outlook for No. 19. The inclusion of a roof-level balcony would lead to unacceptable overlooking of rear-facing habitable windows, and the introduction of a roof terrace without adequate noise mitigation would cause increased disturbance, particularly during evenings. The proposal would therefore harm the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Policy 7 and Policy 34 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 4. | The proposed development, due to a lack of on-site car parking and cycle storage provision would result in overspill on to surrounding streets detrimental to the surrounding highway network and amenity enjoyed by nearby residents, contrary to Policy 24 of the Havering Local Plan and Policies, T5, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan. |
| 5. | 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 depature from the officer's pre-application advice, 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. |
| 6. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for both the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the Havering Council's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be a total £19,200.00. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
