| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal involves reducing the amount of land for The Bell Inn, including the loss of the pub garden and reducing its car parking provision, which would have a detrimental impact on the functionality and viability of The Bell Inn public house as a community facility contrary to Policy 16 of the Havering Local Plan and Policies HC7 and S1 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its height, scale, bulk, mass, appearance, materiality, prominent siting and position close to the boundaries of the site, be an overbearing and poorly designed backland development that would appear incongruous, unduly dominant and visually intrusive harmful to the character and appearance of locally listed public house and the Rainham Conservation Area and would harm the setting of a Grade I listed church contrary to Policies 26 and 28 of the Havering Local Plan, Policies D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 3. | The proposed development does not provide disabled access/lift and does not include any wheelchair accessible units and therefore fails to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design, as such the proposals are contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and Policies D5 and D7 of the London Plan. |
| 4. | Flats 1-6 would, by reason of their insufficient floor to ceiling height, be inadequate resulting in substandard accommodation for future residents through lack of internal space contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 5. | The proposal fails to provide any three or four bedroom family units, contrary to Policy 5 of the Havering Local Plan. No justification has been provided for the departure from the recommended mix of dwelling types. |
| 6. | Flats 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9 would, by reason of their internal layout, window positioning and siting, result in substandard accommodation for future residents through limited outlook and light, noise and disturbance contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 7. | The proposed development would, by reason of its siting, layout and proximity to the boundaries of the site, prejudice the development potential of the adjoining land to the north, east and south of the site contrary to Policy 10 of the Havering Local Plan. |
| 8. | There are nine car parking spaces for the proposed flats, which exceeds the maximum car parking provision of up to 0.75 spaces per dwelling contrary to the aim of the Mayor to reduce car use and contrary to Policy 24 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy T6.1 of the London Plan and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 9. | In the absence of scaled drawings showing adequate visibility splays, the access to the north and south of the Public House building would result in inadequate access and egress arrangements harmful to highway and pedestrian safety and the amenity of the occupiers contrary to Policies 23 and 24 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy T4 of the London Plan. |
| 10. | The proposed development would, by reason of its layout, result in inadequate servicing arrangements contrary to Policy 35 of the Havering Local Plan and Policy T7 of the London Plan. |
| 11. | In the absence of an archaeological field evaluation that involves exploratory fieldwork to determine if significant remains are present on the site and if so, to define their character, extent, quality and preservation and the submission of a field evaluation report, the proposal is contrary to Policy 28 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy HC1 of the London Plan and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 12. | The proposed development does not adequately assess the development's impact on the nearby culvert including assessment of the flood risk impact of development close to the culvert contrary to Policy 32 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy SI 12 of the London Plan 2021 and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 13. | In the absence of a Section 106 agreement to provide a contribution towards funding delivery of active transport improvements, in the vicinity of the site in Rainham village, the development would conflict with the requirements of Policies 2, 12 (vi), and 23 of the Havering Local Plan and Policies T2, T4, and T5 of the London Plan. |
| 14. | 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 Cubit Consulting via email on 19th October 2022. |
| 15. | For Residential Development Only
Please be advised that approval of this application from 1st September 2019 (either by London Borough of Havering, or subsequently by PINS if allowed on appeal following a refusal by London Borough of Havering) will attract a liability payment of £72,573.60 plus indexation in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This charge has been levied under s.206 of the Planning Act 2008 and includes both the Mayor of London's CIL and Havering Council's CIL.
London Borough of Havering, as CIL collecting authority, has responsibility for the collection of the Mayoral CIL, in addition to Havering's CIL, on commencement of the development.
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £22,679.25 plus indexation for the application, based on the Mayoral CIL levy rate for Havering of £25/sq.m plus Havering's charging rate for residential of £55/sq.m (Zone B) and the floorspace of 907.17 square metres.
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil |
