| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development, by reason of the scale, bulk and massing, design, combined with the excessive depth, heights, and positioning against the boundaries of the site, would form an incongruous and unacceptably dominant, and visually intrusive feature. As such the development would fail to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the area and would appear as an unacceptably dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive feature in the Victoria Road/King Edward Road streetscene. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DC61 of the Local Development Framework Development Plan Document and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of the cramped relationship to the site boundaries, depth, scale
and the proximity to the adjacent car park and locked up garages, result in an oppressive development, giving rise to an inadequate setting and outlook with significant loss of privacy and lack of adequate and useable outdoor private amenity area for the proposals. As such the proposal would create a poor quality living environment to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of its design and layout, establish a built form which would restrict the future redevelopment of neighbouring plots and prejudice the comprehensive redevelopment of the adjoining sites. The development would therefore give rise to poor quality isolated and piecemeal development which would undermine the wider aspirations for the site and surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London and Havering Council
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the total CIL payable would be ££62,250. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 5. | The proposal, by reason of the proposed layout, scale, mass, height and design, would be an unneighbourly and domineering and an oppressive development which would adversely impact on the residential amenity of adjacent occupiers, including undue overlooking, loss of light, outlook and loss of privacy contrary to Policy DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 6. | The scale and location of the additional commercial and residential units proposed would result in an over
intensification of the site resulting in significant harm to residential amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of noise and general disturbance associated with the use of site, contrary to Policies DC4, DC5 and DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 7. | 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. |
