| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its design, scale and proximity to the site boundaries, appear as a dominant, incongruous and visually intrusive feature within the streetscene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the Gidea Park Special Character Area contrary to Policies DC61 and DC69 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The proposal would, by reason of the intensification of the site, and provision of a living area abutting a neighbouring bedroom, cause significant harm to residential amenity from noise, disturbance and activity, contrary to Policies DC4, DC5 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of its cramped internal layout, including lack of provision of built in internal storage space and the cramped and overlooked nature of the amenity space arrangement, establish a property which fails to ensure the provision of adequate internal space and suitable amenity space. This scheme would be detrimental to the living conditions and amenity of the property's future occupiers contrary to Policies DC55, DC61of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and Policies 3.5 and 7.4 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. | In the absence of a legal agreement to restrict future occupiers from applying for parking permits, the proposal fails to satisfactorily maintain the functionality of the local road network, contrary to the provisions of Policies DC33 and DC72 of the Development Control Policies DPD and Policies 6.13 and 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 Raymond Lam via email on 1st August 2018. |
| 7. | The planning obligations recommended in this report have been subject to the statutory tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the obligations are considered to have satisfied the following criteria:-
(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b) Directly related to the development; and
(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. |
| 8. | 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 £1920. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
