No.Condition Text
1.The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its prominent rear garden location, positioning within the site and excessive footprint appear as an incongruous feature within the street-scene and rear garden environments which would be harmful to the appearance and character of the surrounding area, at odds with the existing pattern of development and detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.
2.The proposed development would result in living conditions that do not create a suitably high quality living environment for future occupiers. The constraints of the site in conjunction with the design approach adopted would be to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. The unusual plot size and arrangement of living accommodation and provision of amenity space would be substandard and give rise to an overwhelming sense of enclosure in direct contrast to the aims of London Plan Policy 3.5 and Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.
3.The development proposals fail to incorporate adequate visibility splays, due to the confined nature of the development and enclosed nature of the site frontage. Accordingly the development would cause material harm to highway/pedestrian safety over and above the existing arrangement. The development would therefore be at odds with Policy DC33 of the LDF Core Strategy. Conflict also arises with Policy DC34.
4.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.
5.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 reasons for it was given to the agent and applicant 29-12-2017 in writing.
6.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 £1720. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website.