| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed roof extension by reason of their overall bulk, mass, scale and design and the proposed two side extension by reason of its lack of adequate setback at first floor level from the original elevation fails to be subservient in design and would unbalance the architectural composition of the building and appearance of this pair of semi-detached dwelling and appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the street scene and rear garden harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 2. | The proposed extension, in particular the single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive depth be an intrusive and unneighbourly development which would appear as an unacceptably dominant and overbearing development to the detriment of adjoining neighbours at No. 49 Hainault Road and be a visually intrusive feature garden scene harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area and character, which is contrary to the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD 2011 and Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | 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, it was necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application. |
