| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed two storey side and rear extension would, by reason of its height, bulk and mass, as well as its incongruous arrangement of entrance door and fenestration, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene, out of character with the prevailing pattern and arrangement of development in the locality, harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposal would, due to a combination of its inadequate internal spacing and inadequate provision of outdoor amenity space to serve a development of the size proposed, give rise to a cramped and poor quality living environment, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate on site car parking provision, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity, and would fail to make adequate provision for visibility sightlines, to the detriment of the safety of pedestrians and other road users, contrary to Policies DC32 and DC33 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. | 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 29-03-2016 |
