| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling,would as a result of the constraints of the site, inappropriate design and appearance, appear as a disproportionately narrow feature in the street-scene and through limited separation from shared boundaries and limited plot size read as a cramped overdevelopment of the site. It would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and prevailing pattern of development contrary to policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. 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. | There would be a deficit in off-street parking which would lead to increased competition for on-street parking in a location which is observed to have existing parking stress. Increased competition for spaces would be to the detriment of the amenity of surrounding neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore proposed car parking layout is deigned in such a manor which would not allow the cars to manoeuvre within the site in order to enter and egress the site in a forward gear fashion and would result in a loss of parking for the donor dwelling to the detriment of highway safety and the free flow of traffic contrary to Policy DC33 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would result in living conditions that do not create a suitably high quality living environment for future occupiers. The proposed dwelling would fail to meet minimum prescribed internal spacing standards and through the constrained site demonstrate a low quality amenity area which would contribute to an environment which would be detrimental to the amenity of future occupants in direct contrast to the aims of London Plan Policy 3.5 and Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the NPPF. |
| 4. | The scale, bulk and ass of the propose dwelling and close proximity to neighbouring properties would give rise to increased levels of overlooking, loss of privacy as well as representing an intrusive and overbearing feature as a separate unit of accommodation contrary to the Residential Design SPD and Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the NPPF. |
| 5. | Please note also that should permission were to be granted, (either by London Borough of Havering, or subsequently by PINS if allowed on appeal following a refusal by London Borough of Havering) will attract a liability payment of £7,650 plus indexation in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This charge has been levied under s.206 of the Planning Act 2008 and includes both the Mayor of London's CIL and Havering Council's CIL.
London Borough of Havering, as CIL collecting authority, has responsibility for the collection of the Mayoral CIL, in addition to Havering's CIL, on commencement of the development. Based upon calculations undertaken by the case officer and information supplied with the application your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £1275 plus indexation for the application, based on the Mayoral CIL levy rate for Havering of £25/sq.m plus Havering's charging rate for residential of £125/sq.m (Zone A) and the floorspace of 225 square metres - equating to £6,375.
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil. |
| 6. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: Amendments were sought by staff which addressed issues with parking, however it was not considered that the above reasons for refusal were capable of being overcome. Consideration was given to seeking fruther 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 27-01-2021 |
| 7. | Due to COVID-19 and social distancing measures implemented, a site visit was not undertaken by the case officer. For the purposes of assessing the proposed development a combination of historic photographs, including those from the previous submission, street-view, relevant aerial photography and historic records including drawings were utilised. |
