| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its additional height, bulk and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature out of character with the prevailing pattern of development detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and surrounding area, 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. | The proposed development would fail to demonstrate an acceptable living environment for future occupants, through a failing to meet minimum prescribed internal spacing standards and the lack of permeability and legibility of the development for future occupants, low quality amenity areas and outlook factors which are conducive to a cramped form of development of the site which would be detrimental to the amenity of future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy 3.5 of the London Plan. There would also be conflict with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for future users of development. |
| 3. | The replacement building proposed would present as a visually intrusive and dominant feature as a result of its scale, bulk and mass at a high level and projection into the site, detrimental to neighbouring amenity through loss of outlook, increased sense of enclosure and potential for loss of light and overshadowing thereby contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 4. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL2). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be £4,950. In addition the proposals would be liable for Havering CIL (HCIL) and the HCIL payable would be £24,750. |
| 5. | In the absence of sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal adequately responds to policies relating to affordable housing provision, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policies 3.11 and 3.13 of the London Plan, as well as the Mayor's Home for Londoner's Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance 2017, as well as the provisions of Policy 6.2 of the draft Local Plan. |
| 6. | 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 04-06-2020. |
