| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The continued use of this property in conjunction with the three other properties which the applicant is seeking to regularise, as well as the conversion of the existing Clarewood dwelling, results in an over-concentration of HMO uses which would lead to more than two adjacent properties in this cul-de-sac in use as an HMO, thereby undermining the principle of mixed communities, contrary to Policy 8 (ii) and 26 of Local Plan 2021. |
| 2. | The use of the subject dwelling as HMO based on its size and location and in conjunction with high prospective occupancy would be distinguishable from its lawful use as a single dwelling house, even one occupied by a multi-generational family. It would accordingly form a conspicuous feature based on the level and character of activity which would erode the qualities of the rural nature, fundamentally that it is comprised of large detached and semi-detached single family dwellings rather than those with multiple households thereby contrary to the objectives of the Havering Local Plan Policies 8 and 26. |
| 3. | The high prospective occupancy in the absence of evidence otherwise would generate intensive and conspicuous activity distinguishable from that of a single dwelling house/a typical family dwelling. The scale of the proposals as sought and as might be achieved through room sizes and layout would translate to significantly higher levels of comings / goings and intensive activity over and above that of a single dwelling house resulting in a detrimental impact to the amenity of adjoining residents from noise and disturbance associated. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies 8 (iii) and 34 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. |
| 4. | The proposals fail to demonstrate adequate levels of parking. The nature of the HMO use by unrelated occupants combined with the level of occupancy is considered likely to lead to increased vehicle ownership and overspill which would contribute unacceptably to existing levels of parking stress and limited on-street spaces within the locality to the detriment of the amenity of surrounding occupiers. The absence of any compelling evidence otherwise, such as a parking stress survey, means that it has not been demonstrated that there would not be conflict with Policy 8 (iv), Policy 24 and Para 115 of the Framework. |
| 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. |
