| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | In the absence of a mechanism to secure a planning obligation towards the infrastructure costs of new development the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy DC72 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposal is unacceptable in principle as it would be a form of development that would be uncharacteristic of the local context by reason of its cramped layout, excessive density, scale, bulk, mass and footprint and small donor gardens. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policies DC3 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Residential Design SPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development by reason of a combination of its excessive height, close proximity to shared boundaries and the close proximity of the car parking areas to neighbouring rear gardens would be dominant and overbearing and would result in noise disturbance and odour from car exhaust fumes. As such it would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring occupants by creating a poor living environment. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 3.5 of The London Plan and Residential Design SPD. |
| 4. | The proposal would provide insufficient off-street car parking which is may result in overspill car parking and the proposed access road by reason of insufficient width would not be able to accommodate 2-way use which may lead to conflict between motorists entering and leaving the site to the detriment of the safety and operation of the local highway network. Therefore, the proposal would to contrary to Policies DC32, DC33 and DC34 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 6.13 of the London Plan. |
| 5. | The proposal would provide insufficient and inadequate cycle parking / storage which is would be contrary to promoting sustaining means of transport. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policy DC35 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 6.9 of the London Plan. |
| 6. | Policy DC6 sets out Havering's position on affordable housing provision. For developments of 10 dwellings or more and on residential sites of 0.5 hectares or more irrespective of the number of dwellings, there is a requirement to provide 50% affordable housing with target and tenure split of 70:30 between social housing and intermediate forms. However, the Mayor's Affordable Housing SPG states that applications that meet or exceed the 35% threshold for affordable housing provision are not required to provide viability information, but applications that do not meet the 35 per cent threshold are required to provide a viability assessment.
All the proposed 12 residential units are market housing, no affordable housing provision has been proposed and no viability assessment has been submitted to justify the lack of affordable housing provision. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policy DC6 of the LDC Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Policies 3.11 and 3.13 of The London Plan |
| 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, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 06-06-2018. |
| 8. | 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 £11,900. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
