| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The erection of a two storey building within the rear garden setting of no. 19 Cranham Gardens would be incongruous in terms of scale, bulk and mass. The impact of this would be exacerbated by the steep rise in ground levels to the rear of the site, such that the development is considered to appear an overly-dominant structure and represent an overdevelopment of the rear garden environment which is inconsistent with the prevailing open character of the rear garden scene and local pattern of development in the surrounding area and would be unduly prominent and bulky in the street-scene when viewed from Rustic Close, contrary to policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed private outdoor amenity space would, by reason of the steep gradient in the land, result in part of it being unusable and compared with other outdoor amenity spaces in the surrounding area which are relatively spacious and provided at the rear, the proposed small patio and garden to the side of the house would be out of character. This space would also be on much higher ground than the adjoining neighbour at no. 19 Cranham Gardens and would likely result in overlooking of their property and thus a loss of privacy for the neighbour. It would be detrimental to the future occupiers of the site as well as being considered unneighbourly and result in undue and significant impact to the amenity of the adjoining neighbour, contrary to contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of its design and location set forward of the adjoining neighbour, would be out of character with the prevailing architecture and pattern of development of the street and appear visually dominant and intrusive, harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of its position and proximity to neighbouring properties cause overlooking and loss of privacy for no. 14 Rustic Close and no. 19 Cranham Gardens with additional impacts to loss of access to sunlight/daylight and a sense of overbearing development, which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 5. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate arrangement of on site car parking provision, the location of the proposed crossover blocking the neighbours existing crossover, the lack of secure cycle storage and the inaccessible location of refuse bins, result in unacceptable impacts to highway safety and residential amenity contrary to Policies DC33 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 6. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate Gross Internal Floor area and dimensions of the two storey dwelling and bedrooms being below the minimum space standards, result in a cramped and low quality outcome at the detriment to future occupiers of the site, contrary to contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. The proposal would also fail to accord with the core principle set out in Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings. |
| 7. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the total CIL payable would be £9,955.50 CIL amounts are subject to indexation. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 8. | 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 was given to Mr Louis Koumouris (the agent) via email on 5 November 2020. |
