| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development shown as Block 1 would, by reason of its height, bulk and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant 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 layout, size and position of the amenity space for the proposed development of flats shown as Block 1 would be unacceptably cramped and of poor quality, materially harmful to the amenity of future occupiers. The proposal would also fail to make adequate amenity space provision for all units within Block 4, creating conditions harmful to the amenity of future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of insufficient on-site parking provision, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity and contrary to Policies DC2 and DC33 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 £27,040.00. 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: In accordance with para 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, improvements required to make the proposal acceptable were negotiated with the agent via email on 19/10/16. The revisions involved an increase in parking and a revisions to the crown roof design and amenity provision of block 1 and amenity provision of block 4. The applicant declined to make the suggested revisions. |
