| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed detached bungalows would, by reason of their location, height, bulk and mass, appear as incongruous and unacceptably dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive features in the rear garden setting which would be harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area and amenity of neighbouring residents contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of the dwelling siting, proportions and proximity to the boundaries of the plot, give rise to a cramped appearance and overdevelopment of the site, which would be harmful to the character of the surrounding area. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The proposal, by reason of the cramped and poor quality amenity areas, and the failure of the internal layout of each dwelling to comply with the the minimum gross internal floor area standards, would result in an overly cramped development and insufficient living environment to the detriment of future residential amenity and contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy 3.5 of the London Plan. |
| 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 proposed development would, by reason of its design and layout, including the tightly restricted parking arrangements and on site vehicle manoeuvring space, gives rise to poor quality development which would result in inadequate and inconvenient on site car parking provision for future residents and overspill on to the adjoining roads to the detriment of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 6.13 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 Nigel Davie via email on 3/4/18. |
| 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 £2,420. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
