| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, depth, siting, proportions and proximity to the boundaries of the site, combined with the tapered boundaries of the site, appear incongruous and give rise to a cramped appearance and overdevelopment harmful to the open and spacious 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 is of poor quality, given its small size, limited depth, triangular shape and its siting adjacent to the flank wall of the donor property and would result in a cramped layout harmful to the amenity of future occupiers and contrary to Policy DC61 of Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Design for Living Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 3. | The proposed dwelling would fail to offer a satisfactory living accommodation layout due
to the following issue. The proposed dwelling would have a gross internal floor area of 54 square metres, which fails to meet the 58 square metres in line with the DCLG Technical Housing Standards.
The layout of the proposed dwelling would be contrary to Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and the DCLG Technical Housing Standard. |
| 4. | The cumulative impact of the height, siting, proportions and position of the dwelling close to the boundaries of the site as well as the change in ground levels, would be an unneighbourly development and appear as a dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden environment harmful to the amenity of adjacent occupiers, particularly No.'s 43 and 45 Retford Road 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. | 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 £480. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 7. | 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 Mr Bell via email on 15th August 2016. |
