| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling would through the constrained proportions of the site and limited plot size and increased scale, bulk and mass read as a cramped overdevelopment of the site and form a visually intrusive and overbearing from adjoining and adjacent sites. It would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and prevailing pattern of development contrary to policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD with regards to the roof accommodation. There would also be conflict with Paragraph 124 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that development should take into account the desirability of maintaining an area's prevailing character and setting |
| 2. | The scale, bulk and mass of the proposed dwelling and close proximity to neighbouring properties in particular the donor dwelling would form a dominant and overbearing feature from inside and outside spaces and would lead to overlooking and loss of privacy through the siting of first floor terraced areas contrary to the Residential Design SPD, Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Paragraph 130(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that development creates places which provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. |
| 3. | The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposals would not harm the amenity of occupiers of the donor property, particularly those occupiers of ground floor units of the conversion through the use of the access, parking and communal spaces through noise and disturbance. This would be contrary to the Residential Design SPD and LDF Policy DC61 in addition to LDF Policy DC33 which requires parking provision for development have no impact on the amenity of residents and the interests of the users of adjacent facilities. |
| 4. | The development proposals through close relationship to shared boundaries and relationship with Brooklands Approach would not cater sufficiently for the amenity of future occupants of those grounds floor units and would fail to provide a suitably high quality living environment. The development would be contrary to LDF Policy DC61, the Residential Design SPD, Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 and the objectives of the NPPF including Paragraph 130(f) which requires fundamentally that development creates places which provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. |
| 5. | Please note also that should permission were to be granted, (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 £33,150 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. Based upon calculations undertaken by the case officer and information supplied with the application your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £5525 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 £125/sq.m (Zone A) and the floorspace of 60 square metres - equating to £27,625.
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 |
| 6. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: Amendments were sought by staff which addressed issues with parking, however it was not considered that the above reasons for refusal were capable of being overcome. Consideration was given to seeking fruther amendments, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 16-09-2021. |
