| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its scale, bulk, mass, siting and position close to the boundaries of the site, result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site and appear overbearing and visually dominant. The design of the property and arrangement of entrances and fenestration is also at odds with prevailing local character. The proposal is therefore considered to be dominant and visually intrusive in the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The amenity space for the proposed dwelling would not be particularly usable or good quality for future occupiers, given its irregular shape, limited depth, its siting and proximity to the car parking space of the donor property. The amenity space for the donor property would not be particularly good quality for existing occupiers, given its limited depth and small size.The poor quality provision of amenity space for the donor and proposed dwellings in this location would result in a cramped layout harmful to the amenity of existing and future occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Design for Living Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 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 LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan. |
| 4. | 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 JSP Partnership Ltd via email on 13th July 2018. |
| 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 £1,620. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
