| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The use of the subject dwelling as HMO based on its size and location and in conjunction with high prospective occupancy would be distinguishable from its lawful use as a single dwelling house, even one occupied by a multi-generational family. It would accordingly form a conspicuous feature based on the level and characterof activity which would erode the qualities of the Emerson Park Policy Area, fundamentally that it is comprised of large detached single family dwellings rather than those with multiple households thereby contrary to the objectives of the Emerson Park Policy Area SPD and Havering Local Plan Policies 8 and 26. |
| 2. | The proposals fail to make adequate provision for the amenity of all future occupants through non-compliance with the East London HMO Guidance which is suggestive of an arrangement that is not of suitably high quality and one which would be detrimental to the amenity of future occupants, in particular those within the accommodation in the roof through separation from communal facilities and poor outlook/aspect and light. Accordingly there is conflict with the objectives of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policy 8(vii). |
| 3. | The high prospective occupancy in the absence of evidence otherwise would generate intensive and conspicuous activity distinguishable from that of a single dwelling house/a typical family dwelling. The scale of the proposals as sought and as might be achieved through room sizes and layout would translate to significantly higher levels of comings / goings and intensive activity over and above that of a single dwelling house resulting in a detrimental impact to the amenity of adjoining residents from noise and disturbance associated. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies 8 and 34 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. |
| 4. | The proposals fail to demonstrate adequate levels of parking. The nature of the HMO use by unrelated occupants combined with the level of occupancy is considered likely to lead to increased vehicle ownership and overspill which would contribute unacceptably to existing levels of parking stress and limited on-street spaces within the locality to the detriment of the amenity of surrounding occupiers. The absence of any compelling evidence otherwise, such as a parking stress survey, means that it has not been demonstrated that there would not be conflict with Policy 8, London Plan T6 and Para 115 of the Framework. |
| 5. | The relationship and use of the "annexe", the layout and function of which has not been expressly stated within this application submission, would be detrimental to the amenity of occupants of the HMO through the close relationship and location of openings as shown on drawing no. 1673/02 Rev A thereby contrary to Policies Policies 8 and 34 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. |
| 6. | 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 in writing 14-11-2024 |
