| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed layout of the development would be inadequate resulting in substandard accommodation for future residents through lack of internal space. As a result, the development represents an overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policies DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Technical Housing Standards, the Housing Standards Minor Alterations to the London Plan, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and the Housing SPG 2016. |
| 2. | The proposed car parking spaces for the donor and proposed dwellings, would by reason of their insufficient depth, result in vehicles overhanging the footway to the detriment of pedestrian comfort and safety contrary to Policies DC33 and DC34 of the Local Development Framework of the Local Development Framework and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 3. | The amenity space for the proposed dwelling is of poor quality, given its small size, limited depth, triangular shape, its siting adjacent to the walls of the proposed dwelling and the existing garden walls and would be overshadowed for most of the day. The insufficient provision of amenity space for the proposed three bedroom dwelling in this location distant from the nearest children's play space would result in a cramped layout harmful to the amenity of future occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Design for Living Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 4. | The creation and access of the south eastern car parking space for the donor property would require the removal of a large street tree contrary to Policy DC60 the Local Development Framework and Policy 2 of the Havering Tree Strategy. |
| 5. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards the demand for school places arising from the development, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the infrastructure impact of the development, contrary to the provisions of Policies DC29 and DC72 of the Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 8.2 of the London 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 Ms Abdelmasih via email on 25th January 2017. |
| 7. | 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 £1,720. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
