| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, bulk, design and proximity to the boundaries of the site, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the currently spacious rear garden environment and the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the Emerson Park area, the wider streetscene and the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property, contrary to Policies DC61 and DC69 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate on site car parking provision, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity and contrary to Policy DC33 and DC34 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, due to a lack of provision of visibility splays, result in development that would be unsafe for road users and will compromise highway safety contrary to Policy DC33 and DC34 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | 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. |
| 5. | 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 £1,140.00. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 6. | 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 applicant's agent via telephone call on 13 January 2016. |
