| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development, by reason of the additions to the building required to facilitate its conversion to separate self contained units, through additional bulk and mass, provision of separate access and amenity areas would contribute to a building in a prominent location which would appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature out of character with the prevailing pattern of development detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and surrounding area, contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD. There would also be conflict with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that developments should function well, add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character. |
| 2. | The proposed development would fail to demonstrate an acceptable living environment for future occupants, through a failing to meet minimum prescribed internal spacing standards and the lack of permeability and legibility of the development for future occupants, disconnected amenity areas, outlook and natural light, all factors which are conducive to a cramped form of development of the site which would be detrimental to the amenity of future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy DC6 of the London Plan (2021). There would also be conflict with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for future users of development. |
| 3. | The proposed additions to the subject building, in particular the ground floor element would present as a wall of development from the adjoining property no. 42 Broadhurst Walk, forming a visually intrusive feature detrimental to neighbouring amenity through outlook, loss of light/overshadowing thereby contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 4. | The development would create an uplift in occupancy and an intensification of the use of the site which would be over and above what could be regarded as acceptable having regard to the size of the site and relationship with neighbouring residential property, which would thereby be detrimental to local character and the amenity of adjoining and nearby occupiers, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 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 in writing 05-03-21. |
| 6. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL2) and also the Havering Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be £7,950. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
