| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed building through its design and mass, in particular roof form and relationship to shared boundaries would be visually dominant and overbearing when viewed from the street and surrounding sites. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 and also Paragraph 130(a) of the NPPF which requires fundamentally that development add to the overall quality of the area whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place. |
| 2. | The proposed development would fail to reflect prevailing character and patterns of development to the detriment of special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Accordingly the development fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is therefore, contrary to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and consequently Policy 28 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. With regards to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), the level of harm to the Conservation Area is considered less than substantial, which enacts Paragraph 196. It is not considered that any heritage or public benefit would outweigh the harm identified. |
| 3. | The proposed development would fail to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation in all of the units proposed through inadeqaute internal spacing (Unit 01) and low quality private amenity space (Units 6, 7, 8 and 9) and poor aspect and outlook from main habitable rooms (units 1,2,4 & 5) which would result in sub-standard residential accommodation to the detriment of the amenity of the prospective occupiers contrary to Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policy 7, London Plan Policy D6. There would also be conflict with Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. |
| 4. | The proposed development does not provide disabled access/lift and does not include any wheelchair accessible units and therefore fails to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design, as such the proposals are contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan and Policies D5 and D7 of the London Plan. |
| 5. | In the absence of confirmation otherwise the arrangement of parking, cycle and refuse storage would be undeliverable due to the location of these facilities on/in conflict with the adopted public highway. The development would accordingly fail to make adequate provision for off-street parking, waste and refuse storage/collection and cycle storage as would be required by Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 23 and 24 and London Plan Policies T5 and T6. |
| 6. | In the absence of an archaeological field evaluation that involves exploratory fieldwork to determine if significant remains are present on the site and if so, to define their character, extent, quality and preservation and the submission of a field evaluation report, the proposal is contrary to Policy 28 of the Havering Local Plan, Policy HC1 of the London Plan and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 7. | In the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) at submission the proposals fail to take into account paragraph 159 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires any new developments to be safe from flooding for their lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. |
| 8. | 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 28-02-2023. |
