| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed extensions would, by reason of their cumulative scale, bulk and proximity to no. 12 East Close, give rise to an intrusive and overbearing form of development that is disproportionate to the host dwelling, appearing cramped and out of character in the streetscene, as well as being intrusive and overbearing in relation to no.12 East Close and also giving rise to unacceptable overlooking, materially harmful to amenity and contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 2. | The proposal would provide an unsatisfactory arrangement for parking for the scheme, leading to an increase of on-road parking in the area detrimental to highway safety contrary to Policy 24 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy T6 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The arrangement of bedrooms 1 and 2 of the ground floor flat in relation to the neighbouring living areas, combined with poor quality outlook from bedroom 3 of the ground floor flat, in addition to the poor relationship between the ground floor bedroom 1 and the parking and refuse storage arrangements for the proposed dvelopment, and the poor access arrangements from the first floor flat to the rear garden would give rise to a poor quality living environment for future occupiers of the flats, contrary to Policy 7 and 9 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 4. | The proposal does not adequately demonstrate that adequate provision can be made for the safe, secure storage of cycles or for refuse awaiting collection. By reason of the cramped arrangement of the front garden and conflict with required levels of parking provision together with the difficulty of side access to the rear garden it is not clear how the scheme is able to demonstrate that the cycle and refuse storage can adequately be provided for within the site, contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. |
| 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, 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 the Mayor of London and Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the Mayoral CIL payable would be £1605 based on £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £8025 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. |
