| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The dwelling would, by reason of its positioning, bulk, mass and scale on a constrained plot with an awkward footprint and poor design, appear as an incongruous and cramped development in the streetscene harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area and inconsistent with the prevailing character of development in the local area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies 10, 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also the NPPF which requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 2. | The proposed development would result in a poor quality living environment for future occupiers. The design approach adopted would provide poor outlook and a sense of enclosure from the main ground floor habitable room, resulting in substandard residential accommodation to the detriment of the amenity of future occupants of this proposed 3-bed dwelling. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 10, 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and Policy D6 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its positioning, scale, bulk and proximity to the nearby property at no.2 Surridge Close, be an intrusive, overbearing and unneighbourly development that would have a significant adverse effect on the amenities of these adjacent occupiers resulting in an overbearing impact contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate on site car parking provision for the new dwelling, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity and contrary Policies 23 & 24 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. |
| 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, it was necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application. |
| 6. | In the event that this application is allowed through the appeals process the proposals would be liable for the following CIL contributions:
Mayoral CIL contribution of £1765 (x £25 per sqm).
Havering CIL contribution of £8825 (x £125 per sqm)
Each contribution would be subject to indexation. |
