| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its cumulative design failings as an independent dwelling appear as a visually intrusive feature in the streetscene harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the London Borough of Havering LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008. The existing pattern of development in the rear garden environment along Abbs Cross Lane is typically characterised by service buildings, comprising single storey garages and outbuildings with relatively low eave heights.The proposed development would appear incongruous to the existing site as it would not reflect the design of the development at Bethany Close, nor the single storey garages and outbuildings. As such it is considered that the proposal would appear dominant in the rear garden scene and would harm the visual amenity of the surrounding area. |
| 2. | The proposal would provide accommodation which is below the Mayoral minimum size standard. It is considered that the limited floorspace would result in a substandard level of living space for the occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the London Borough of Havering LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD 2008, the London Borough of Havering SPD on Residential Design 2011 and Policy 3.5 of The London Plan 2016. It is considered that the proposal would result in the potential for overlooking of the rear gardens to the north of the site and the perception of a loss of privacy for both the future occupants of the dwelling and the residents immediately adjacent to the dwelling along Abbs Cross Lane. Overall due to the nature of the site and the arrangement of the living spaces in the proposed dwelling, it is considered that there would be a material loss of residential amenity to the surrounding residents and the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. |
| 3. | 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 Mr Mark Breden, via email on 07/02/2019. |
