| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development 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 character and appearance of the surrounding area and to the amenity of adjacent occupiers in terms of overshadowing, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposal would form a cramped over-development of the site introducing excessive amounts of hardstanding and development into the rear garden environment. Consequently the proposed development would result in an awkward and jarring visual relationship to the neighbouring properties and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the rear garden environment contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of its position and proximity to neighbouring properties cause overlooking and loss of privacy which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | The proposed site access and refuse storage would be inadequate for refuse vehicles and collections resulting in inadequate servicing arrangements contrary to Policy DC36 of the Local Development Framework Development Plan 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 amended plans, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, notification of intended refusal and the reasons for it was given to the agent Brian Bye on 5/4/17 via email. |
| 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 £7,360. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
