| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its prominent rear garden location, height, bulk and mass, and proximity to neighbouring garden boundaries appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden setting which would be harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its layout and servicing arrangements and the amount of hardstanding, comprise an uncharacteristically enclosed and cramped form of development to the detriment of future residential amenity which would undermine the spacious appearance of the surrounding rear garden environment contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed access road and turning area would, by reason of its excessive length, scale and relationship with the adjoining residential rear gardens, result in noise and disturbance caused by cars using the access road, including manoeuvring within the site, and thereby be unacceptably detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of adjacent properties and future occupiers of the proposed development, contrary to Policy DC61 and DC55 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of the narrow single carriageway access would result in vehicles stopping on Collier Row Lane to gain access into the site to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to Policies DC2, DC32 and DC33 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Document. |
| 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 reasons for it was given to the agent Cheryl Farrow of Farrow Silverton Architects on 15/3/16 via telephone. |
| 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 £9600.00. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
