| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling, by reason of the uncharacteristically narrow plot, the height and depth of the proposed dwelling and its roof design coupled with its position close to the boundaries of the site would be out of character and 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 proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate provision of amenity space, result in a cramped over-development of the site to the detriment of future occupiers and the character of the surrounding area contrary to the aims of the Residential Design SPD and Policy DC61 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | 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 Policies DC31 and DC33 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of its position and proximity to neighbouring properties cause overlooking and loss of privacy from first floor rear facing windows which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, 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. | 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 agent by email 14-07-2016 |
| 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 £1980. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
