| 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 and layout, including the close proximity of the dwellings and living areas to the site boundaries, fail to adequately demonstrate that sufficient consideration has been given to the wider living environment to mitigate the harm from the adjoining non-conforming neighbouring uses. As such the proposed development does not ensure a high quality living environment for future occupants to the determent if residential amenity and contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposal, by reason of the cramped and poor quality amenity areas, and the failure of the internal layout to comply with the Technical housing standards - nationally described space standard in respect of the minimum gross internal floor area, is considered to result in an overly cramped development on the site to the detriment of future residential amenity and contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 3.5 of the London Plan. |
| 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. | The proposed development would, by reason of its design and layout, including the tightly restricted undercroft parking arrangements and on site vehicle manoeuvring space, gives rise to poor quality development which would result in inadequate and inconvenient on site car parking provision for future residents. This would create a poor quality living environment to the detriment of future residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 6. | 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. |
| 7. | 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 £6,660. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 8. | 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. |
