| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its design, height, scale and proximity to the site boundaries, appear as a dominant, incongruous and visually intrusive feature within the streetscene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate provision of amenity space, result in a cramped site layout which would be to the detriment of the amenity of the future occupiers of the property and the character of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan. |
| 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 £2120.00. 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 Andrew Porter via email on 08/05/17. |
