| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The replacement building would, by way of its scale, bulk and mass and position relative to site boundaries, represent an imposing and overbearing feature, detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and harmful to local character. In addition the position of primary windows would give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking/loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers. The development is therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The extent and level of hard-surfacing required to facilitate the parking and turning areas shown on accompanying plans and associated loss of soft landscaping would be harmful to the verdant and spacious character of the application site, therefore detrimental to local character and contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed development would benefit from an internal layout which would be unfit for purpose, with a gross internal floor area and bedroom size/mix that would not align with the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.5. Consequently the replacement building would offer a poor standard of living accommodation and amenity for future occupiers, with poor outlook from primary windows at ground and first floor. The absence of any form of amenity space is representative of the cramped and overdeveloped nature of the proposals. The proposed development is therefore contrary to principles of Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy 3.5 (Table 3.3) of the London Plan. |
| 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. | 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 in writing 28-09-2017. |
| 6. | 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 £1800. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
