| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its siting and design, appear out of keeping with the character of the adjacent properties and thus would be detrimental to the Suttons Avenue street-scene and is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed detached dwelling would, by reason of its prominent rear garden location, height, bulk and mass, appear as an incongruous and unacceptably dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden setting which would be harmful to the appearance and character of the surrounding area and detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would result in living conditions that do not create a suitably high quality living environment for future occupiers. The failure of the development proposals to align with the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.5 is conducive to a poor quality living environment, furthermore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 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. | 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 £.1400. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 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 the agent and applicant in writing 13-03-2018 |
