| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The site layout and design approach of the proposed development result in habitable rooms having inadequate outlook, poor aspect and an unacceptably high proportion of single aspect dwellings, which would not create an attractive, safe and secure, high-quality living environment which is sustainable and provides a high standard of accommodation and amenity for future residents. In addition, the proposed amenity and play space alongside the indicative path to Goldcrest Way is in an isolated part of the site that is not overlooked by the majority of proposed dwellings. It is likely to be difficult to access for most residents and therefore less likely to be well used, and as such leads to a poor environment for the overall residential setting. Pedestrian and cycle access into the site via Copse Ave to the north is disjointed and hostile, with intermittent footways and frontage that is dominated by loading and service bays. In these respects, the proposal would result in substandard residential accommodation to the detriment of the amenity of the future occupiers contrary to the London Plan Housing Design Standards LPG; policies D4, D6 and D8 of the London Plan; the Havering Residential Design SPD and policies 3, 7 and 26 of the Local Plan. The proposal would also fail to accord with the core principle set out in Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings. |
| 2. | The size of the proposed private garden areas for the houses is not commensurate to the type of family accommodation being proposed and would result in an oppressive outlook from the ground floor habitable rooms. As such, the proposed development will not provide a suitable, sustainable and quality living accommodation for its future occupants, contrary to the London Plan Housing Design Standards LPG; policies D4, D6 and D8 of the London Plan; the Havering Residential Design SPD and policies 3, 7 and 26 of the Local Plan. The proposal would also fail to accord with the core principle set out the National Planning Policy Framework that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.. |
| 3. | The proposed development fails to provide an appropriate mix of units including a significant proportion of three bed or more family housing to address the identified needs within the borough contrary to the aims of Policy 5 of the Havering Local Plan. |
| 4. | Agreement regarding the level of affordable housing provision has not been reached at this time, the application has not demonstrated that the tenure and units mix would meet the Council's affordable housing policy requirement and no obligation has been received which secures a policy compliant level of affordable housing contribution. Accordingly the proposed development conflicts with the requirements of policies H4, H5, H6 and DF1 of the London Plan; London Plan Affordable Housing SPG; Policies 4 and 5 of the Havering Local Plan. |
| 5. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions toward carbon reduction, additional school places, employment skills and training, apprenticeship, residential travel plan, restriction on ability to obtain parking permits and the provision of public realm/open space/highways improvements, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the infrastructure impact of the development, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Policies 16, 17, 22, 23 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 - 2031, Policy DF1 of the London Plan. |
| 6. | The proposed development proposes the loss of a significant number of trees on site. The positioning of the 49 new trees varies; however, this is mostly positioned adjacent to proposed car parking bays throughout the site. The positioning of these trees potentially at odds with their longevity and establishment in the landscape of the area contradicting the re-establishing of a framework for the ongoing and long-term character of the site. Given the proposed positions of these trees the lateral crown spread is likely to present conflict with potential future residents of the site, namely through leaf fall, bird excrement, tree sap and lateral crown spread. This also presents future pressure for removal of the mitigation planting at the site. The proposal would have the potential to have a negative impact on the character of its immediate surrounding, the proposal is therefore not considered in accordance with policies 26, 27, 30 of the Havering Local Plan. |
| 7. | Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how the protected or priority species being present in the vicinity of the site and for biodiversity enhancements and biodiversity net gain to be provided. The proposed development is required to provide measurable biodiversity net gain, as required by the NPPF and Policy G6 of the London Plan. The applicant has failed to do so and therefore the application does not comply with national and regional planning policy, Policy 30 of the Local Plan and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). |
| 8. | Sufficient pedestrian and cycle connections to the wider area have not been achieved. The site is isolated and there are significant travel distances to local amenities/services, in particular schools. Copse Avenue is the only route currently linking the site to the wider area, however this is a poor quality route that creates hostile conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Overall, due to the poor quality pedestrian and cycle connections, the proposal would fail to encourage active travel, contributing to a highly car dominated scheme, contrary to Policies T1, T2 and T5 of the London Plan and Policy 26 of the Local Plan. |
| 9. | The applicant has estimated the total carbon savings of 52% CO2 per annum reduction compared to a 2021 Building Regulations compliant development. However, the modelling has not been provided to validate this result and furthermore there is no reference to carbon offset, contrary to the provisions of Policy 36 of the Local Plan and Policy SI 2 of the London Plan. |
| 10. | 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 made know to the application at the preapp stage that the proposal cannot be supported as it is unacceptable design and layout for its location and context |
| 11. | 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 £153,055 based on the calculation of £25.00 per square metre and the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL) would be a charge of £765,275 based on calculation of £125 per square metre (6,122.2sq.m). Each would be subject to indexation.
Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 12. | The planning obligations recommended in this report have been subject to the statutory tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the obligations are considered to have satisfied the following criteria:-
(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b) Directly related to the development; and
(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. |
