| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, bulk and mass, appear as an incongruous and unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the street scene. The development would be at odds with the surrounding pattern of development and would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would not demonstrate a suitably high quality living environment for future occupiers, with the arrangement shown symptomatic of a cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. The development would also demonstrate an inadequate provision of usable amenity space and as such the development would give rise to a poor quality living environment and result in a cramped over-development of the site to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD Policy 7.4 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by way of its scale, bulk and mass and limited separation from shared boundaries represent a dominant and oppressive feature which would restrict the outlook of adjacent residential units and appear as an overbearing feature to the detriment of the amenity of those occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of the absence of on site car parking provision for future residents and resultant impact on existing on-street parking bays, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity contrary to Policy DC33 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 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 reason(s) for it was given to the agent in writing 25-03-2019. |
| 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 £6300. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
