| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its siting, lack of active frontage and proximity to the boundaries of the site, appear as an incongruous and unacceptably cramped over-development of the site, to the detriment of local character and the streetscene contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its height, scale, bulk, mass, siting, combined with its position close to the boundaries of the site, give rise to a cramped appearance and appear a dominant, overbearing, unneighbourly and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden environment harmful to the amenity of adjacent occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | In the absence of a mechanism to secure a planning obligation towards the infrastructure costs of new development the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Havering Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and Policy DC72 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 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be £1,560 . Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 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 the agent by email on 20/10/16. |
