| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposals, would by reason of the loss of significant floor space, ancillary staff accommodation, beer garden, parking and other outside space, limit the operational flexibility and viability of the public house, contrary to Policies HC7 and S1 of the London Plan and Local Plan Policies 16 and 19. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its design and appearance, including the loss of significant original features, result in unsympathetic, visually intrusive development which would not preserve or enhance the special character of this part of the Conservation Area contrary to the NPPF 2023, London Plan Policy HC1, Local Plan Policies 26, 27 and 28 and the Heritage Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of a combination of its extent of site coverage, quantum of development and layout, lack of amenity space for Flat3, cramped, shallow amenity areas for other flats, gives rise to an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, harmful to the character of the surrounding area and the amenity of future occupiers of the development in terms of light, outlook, privacy/overlooking and overbearing impact contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), policies D1, D3 and D4 of The London Plan (2021), London Plan Housing SPG 2023 and the Local Plan Policy 26. |
| 4. | The proposed development, by reason of its bulk, scale and position close to the boundaries of the site, appear unduly dominant, visually intrusive and overbearing in the rear garden environment harmful to the amenity of neighbouring properties and their rear gardens including loss of light and outlook particularly at Ruskin House. In these respects, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 7 of the Local Plan 2021. |
| 5. | In the absence of sufficient information in form of a Noise Impact Assessment, it would be likely that the future occupiers of the proposed residential accommodation would suffer undue noise from the public house, resulting in significant impact on their living conditions, and would be contrary to Policy D13 of the London Plan and Policies 7 and 34 of the Local Plan 2021. |
| 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 £9,750 . Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 7. | 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. |
