| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The amenity space for the proposed dwelling is of poor quality, given its small size, limited depth, triangular shape and its siting adjacent to the flank wall of the existing single storey rear extension and would be overshadowed for most of the day harmful to the amenity of future occupiers and contrary to Policy DC61 of Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Design for Living Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 2. | The proposed car parking spaces for the donor and proposed dwellings, would by reason of their insufficient depth, result in vehicles overhanging the footway to the detriment of pedestrian comfort and safety contrary to Policies DC33 and DC34 of the Local Development Framework of the Local Development Framework and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 3. | The creation and access of the north eastern car parking space for the donor property would require the removal of a large street tree contrary to Policy DC60 the Local Development Framework and Policy 2 of the Havering Tree Strategy. |
| 4. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards the demand for school places arising from the development, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the infrastructure impact of the development, contrary to the provisions of Policies DC29 and DC72 of the Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan. |
| 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to Mr Mark Breden via email on 3rd November 2016. |
