| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed two storey side extension would, by reason of its relationship to the neighbouring detached dwellings overbear and appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive cramped feature in the street scene harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan (2016), to the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD, Emerson Park Policy Area SPD, and Policies DC61 and DC69 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 2. | The proposed development would by virtue of their excessive protrusion, poor design, height, scale and mass lack subservience to the existing dwelling and would appear incongruous, dominant and visually intrusive in the rear garden environment and front street scene contrary to policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan (2016), Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD, Emerson Park Policy Area SPD, and Policies DC61 and DC69 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 3. | The proposed extensions would, by reason of its excessive depth, height and bulk, be an intrusive and unneighbourly development as well as having an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers at Nos. 12 and 16 Ayloffs Walk, contrary to Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD, Emerson Park Policy Area SPD, and Policies DC61 and DC69 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 4. | 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 Mr Andrew Harrington by e-mail on 24/03/20 |
