| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed roof extension, by reason of its prominent location, bulk and massing, would diminish the character of the existing building and appear as an incongruous and unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene. The proposed development 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 and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 2. | The proposed residential accommodation, by reason of both the internal layout and functionality, as well as the proximity to the rear commercial servicing yard, would create a poor quality living environment for future occupiers. As a result the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for all of the future occupants, to the detriment of residential amenity and contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | 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. |
| 4. | 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 £6,946. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 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, Catherine O'Toole of the Pegasus Group, via email on 23/3/18. |
