| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The site is located within the area identified as Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposals by reasons of its scale, mass, height and design with dormer windows along its length on the front and rear roof elevations, the altered appearance to
two storey semi-detached dwellings and roof mass of the proposals would alter the inherent character of the site which is currently detached bungalow. The proposals would introduce an extensive amount of hardstanding area with rear and side gardens defined primarily by boundary treatments, which would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the Green Belt. No special circumstances have been submitted in this case, the proposal is therefore considered to be an inappropriate development in Green Belt area, contrary to Policy DC45 of the London Borough of Havering Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008, as well as the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. |
| 2. | The proposed dormer windows to the dwellings would, by reason of their number and sitting resulting in a more prominent and visually intrusive form of development, which is detrimental to the open character of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DC45 and DC68 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, as well as the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. |
| 3. | 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 £80,100 Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 4. | 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. |
