| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development by reason of its unsatisfactory design and layout, in particular the arrangement and size of the built form on the site including the proximity and consequent poor relationship to the adjacent development under construction at 25-53 North Street, represents an overdevelopment of the site resulting in an excessively prominent mass and bulk of built form on the site and an unacceptable tunnelling effect to Angel Way. Furthermore, the proposed hotel building facing onto Angel Way would, by reason of its proposed zinc finish, appear incongruous and out of character with the surrounding area and therefore harmful to visual amenity. In this respect the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of this important part of Romford Town Centre, contrary to Policies ROM19, ROM20 and ROMSSA1 of the Local Development Framework Romford Action Plan DPD; Policies DC61 and DC66 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD; Policy CP17 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD and Policies 4B.1, 4B.9 and 4B.10 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The proposed development by reason of its unsatisfactory layout, bulk, mass and detailed design would not be of exemplary standard, fails to present a high quality built frontage to the site and therefore fails to justify the high density proposed for the site. In this respect the development would be contrary to Policies ROM19, ROM20 and ROMSSA1 of the Local Development Framework Romford Action Plan DPD; Policies DC61 and DC66 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD; Policy CP17 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD and Policies 4B.1, 4B.9 and 4B.10 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed development, by reason of its close proximity to surrounding residential development, particularly that at 23-53 North Street currently under construction and proximity between the proposed blocks, would result in an unacceptable degree of interlooking between properties to the detriment of future residential amenity. In this respect, the proposal would be contrary to Policy DC61 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | In the absence of any completed obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposal fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing and as such, fails to make a contribution towards meeting identified housing needs within the Borough, to the detriment of housing opportunities and social inclusion, contrary to Policies DC6 and DC72 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD, Policy CP2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD and Policy 3A.10 of the London Plan. |
| 5. | In the absence of any completed obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposal fails to make adequate provision for the resultant additional school places required and as such, fails to make a contribution towards identified educational needs within the Borough, to the detriment of social inclusion, contrary to Interim Planning Guidance on Educational Needs generated by New Development and Policies DC29 and DC72 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 6. | In the absence of any completed obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposed development, by reason of the likely overspill of vehicles on to surrounding residential streets, failure to improve pedestrian access and to improve public transport, would inhibit the free and safe flow of traffic, to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to Policies ROM4, ROM17, ROMSSA1 of the Local Development Framework Romford Action Plan DPD, Policies DC2, DC33 and DC72 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD and Policy CP10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD. |
| 7. | In the absence of any completed obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposal fails to make adequate safeguards for the creation of a safer, sustainable space and place, to the detriment of the safety of persons travelling through and around the site, contrary to Policies DC63 and DC72 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 8. | In the absence of any completed obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposal fails to make adequate provision to create an attractive well designed setting for the development and therefore constitutes poor design, contrary to Policies ROM19, ROM20 and ROMSSA1 of the Local Development Framework Romford Action Plan DPD; Policies DC61 and DC66 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD; Policy CP17 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD and Policies 4B.1, 4B.9 and 4B.10 of the London Plan. |
