| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would by reason of its form, scale, appearance, prominent siting in relation to No.1 A Takeley Close, as well as its siting within the plot and distances from the boundary result in a cramped form of development, would be unacceptable and uncharacteristic for the area, and would adversely impact on visual amenity in the garden scene, therefore harmful to local character and detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity in terms of loss light/overshadowing and overbearing impacts, contrary to Policy DC61 of the London Borough of Havering LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008. |
| 2. | The proposed development would result in living conditions that do not create a suitably high quality living environment for future occupiers. The constraints of the site in conjunction with the design approach adopted would be to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. The constrained plot and arrangement of living accommodation resulting in
poor aspect and outlook with the habitable room windows in close proximity of the substation feature and the rear retaining wall, would be substandard and give rise to an overwhelming sense of enclosure, in direct contrast to the aims of London Plan Policy D6 and Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | In the absence of a full Tree Survey, the proposed development would result in the removal and/or harm to tree on/adjacent site, which would be materially harmful to the character and amenity of site and surrounding area, contrary to Policies DC60 and DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Protection of Trees during Development Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 4. | 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. |
| 5. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Havering CIL. Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be £14,100. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
