| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed layout of the development would be inadequate resulting in substandard accommodation for future residents through restricted internal area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and London Plan Policy 3.5. |
| 2. | The first floor rear extension features a flat roof, which would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwelling and appear visually intrusive in the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD. |
| 3. | The proposed single storey rear extension would, by reason of its excessive depth and position close to the boundaries of the site, be an intrusive and unneighbourly development as well as having an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, particularly No. 42 Junction Road contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD. |
| 4. | The conversion of the existing dwelling into two flats is of a poor standard of internal layout that would be likely to lead to an unacceptable noise and general disturbance to the attached neighbouring property No. 42 Junction Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DC4 and DC61 of the LDF Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 5. | The proposed decking would, by reason of its height, depth and position close to the boundaries of the site, cause overlooking and loss of privacy which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, particularly No. 42 Junction Road contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 6. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate on site car parking provision, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity contrary to Policies DC2 and DC33 of the LDF Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 7. | 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. |
| 8. | Statement Required by Article 31 (cc) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management) Order 2010: Consideration was given to seeking amendments, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, notification of intended refusal, rather than negotiation, was in this case appropriate in accordance with para 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. |
