| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed layout of the development would be inadequate, resulting in substandard accommodation for future residents of the courtyard flats to the rear of the site through poor outlook, limited light and noise and disturbance from vehicle movement, detrimental to future residential amenity and give rise to a cramped urban form detrimental to local character and amenity contrary to Policy DC61 of the London Borough of Havering Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2016(as amended), the London Borough of Havering Residential Design SPD 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. |
| 2. | The amenity space for the ground floor courtyard flat to the rear of the site would not be sufficiently private amenity space for future occupiers, as it would be overlooked by the balconies and roof terraces of the flats in Exchange House harmful to the amenity of future occupiers and contrary to Policy DC61 of London Borough of Havering Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008 and the London Borough of Havering Design for Living Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document 2010. |
| 3. | The proposed development, including the third floor extension, would, by reason of its excessive width, scale, bulk, mass, materials and fenestration, combined with its prominent siting, appear disproportionate the existing building and appear incongruous, dominant and visually intrusive in the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the London Borough of Havering Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008. |
| 4. | The courtyard flats to the rear of the site would, by reason of their height, scale, bulk, mass and position close to the boundaries of the site, be an unneighbourly development, appear overbearing, dominant and visually intrusive in the rear garden environment and result in a significant loss of amenity, including undue overlooking and loss of privacy, to neighbouring properties, particularly No. 1 and 1A Sunnyside Gardens and No. 2 Tudor Gardens contrary to Policy DC61 of the London Borough of Havering Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008. |
| 5. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards the demand for school places arising from the development, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the infrastructure impact of the development, contrary to the provisions of Policies DC29 and DC72 of the London Borough of Havering Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008 and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan 2016. |
| 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 JTS Partnership via email on 26th June 2019. |
| 7. | 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 £9,609. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
