| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, height, bulk and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its poor quality design, layout and pedestrian access arrangements, including the close proximity of the dwellings and living areas to the site boundaries, fails to create a residential sense of place or adequately demonstrate that sufficient consideration has been given to the wider living environment to mitigate the harm from the adjoining non-conforming neighbouring uses. This would result in an overly cramped and substandard development on the site, which does not ensure a high quality living environment for future occupants to the determent of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed site access and refuse storage arrangement would be inadequate for refuse vehicles and collections resulting in inadequate servicing arrangements. In addition, the narrow width of the entrance road and intensification of the use of the access onto Billet Lane would result in drivers having to reverse back onto Billet Lane to allow another driver to leave the site, creating an increase in collision risk in terms of occupiers and associated traffic turning into and out of the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DC32 & DC36 of the LDF Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of its design and layout, including the orientation and position of the block, gives rise to poor quality development which would prejudice the future redevelopment of the adjoining sites contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 5. | 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. |
| 6. | 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 £10,360. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 7. | In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has worked positively and proactively with the applicant by assessing the proposals against relevant Development Plan policies, all material considerations, consultation responses and any valid representations that may have been received. Where appropriate, issues of concern have been brought to the applicant's attention in a timely manner affording the opportunity to consider whether such matters can be suitably resolved.
This approach has been in accordance with the requirement set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. In this instance it has either not been possible to resolve the issues of concern, within the determination period, or the Local Planning Authority are of the view that the harm as identified in the reason(s) for refusal cannot be easily overcome by way of amendments. The Local Planning Authority has set out within its report the identified concerns and, where and if appropriate, steps which may overcome the identified harm and lead to the submission of a more acceptable scheme in the future. The Local Planning Authority is also willing to offer pre-application advice in respect of any revised proposal. |
