| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its prominent rear garden location, height, bulk and mass, appear as an incongruous and unacceptably dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden setting which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy 26 of the Local Plan 2021 |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its site constraints, location, setting, the shallow and inadequate provision of external amenity space, limited outlook, aspect, sense of enclosure and relationship to adjoining properties would materially harm the living conditions of future occupiers, which would be contrary to Policy 7 of the Local Plan 2021. The proposal would also fail to accord with the core principle set out in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings. |
| 3. | The proposed development would due to the siting, orientation of the site in conjunction with the site coverage, the proposed layout, scale, mass, height and design, would be an unneighbourly, overbearing and an oppressive development which would result in a significant loss of outlook and an increased sense of enclosure to the detriment of the amenity of adjacent occupiers (especially no. 34 Amberley Way) contrary to Policy 7 of the Local Plan 2021. |
| 4. | The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal, having regard to the side access road, is able to make adequate provision for the servicing of the site, including adequate provision for refuse collection and access arrangements for emergency and rescue vehicles, resulting in inadequate servicing arrangements contrary to Polices 24 and 35 of the Local Plan 2021. |
| 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. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy and Havering CIL. Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be £24900 . Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
