| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The bulk, scale and mass of the proposed development in close proximity to the boundaries, on a prominent corner location, would appear as an unneighbourly cramped overdevelopment of the site, incongruous with the local pattern of development and out of character with the surrounding built form, therefore harmful to local character and detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity, contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 and Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021. |
| 2. | The constraints of the site in conjunction with the design approach adopted would be to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. The proposal would lead to poor quality outlook from habitable rooms, low celling heights and close proximity to an electrical sub-station to the detriment of the future occupiers, contrary to the aims of Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 and Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021. |
| 3. | The proposed development would by reason of its bulk, mass and scale on a constrained site within close proximity of the boundaries result in an visually intrusive form of development that would compromise the amenity of nearby habitable rooms and the enjoyment of the neighbours private outdoor spaces due to the increased sense of enclosure created by the proposal, contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 and Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021. |
| 4. | 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 CIL payable would be £6225. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 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. |
