| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | In the absence of sufficient details of the proposed Class E(f) use and details of mitigation measures including a noise report and detailed management plan to overcome concerns regarding noise, the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed use in comparison with the approved food store use would not result in loss of amenity for surrounding residential occupiers contrary to Local Plan policy 7, 34 and 35; London Plan policy D14 and the NPPF 2024. |
| 2. | The proposed front boundary treatment especially the design of the metal grill above the wall, the location of the refuse facilities and the standard of the proposed nursery would be an intrusive and unneighbourly development as well as having an adverse effect on the amenity of the user of the proposed nursery, therefore unacceptable, contrary to Policies 7, 17 and 26 of the Local Plan, S3 of the London Plan, the Early years foundation stage (EYFS) guidance 2024 and the NPPF 2024. |
| 3. | In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposed development would, by reason of the intensification of the use of the premises, give rise to increased pedestrian and vehicular movements over and above the approved use, particularly during early morning and early evening, without adequate car parking and cycle spaces, detrimental to neighbouring amenity and result in an unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity, contrary to policies 23, 24, 26 and 34, policies T5 and T6 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024. |
| 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, it was necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application. |
