| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed layout of Units A & B would be inadequate resulting in substandard accommodation for future residents through lack of internal space. As a result, the development represents an overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policies DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Technical Housing Standards, the Housing Standards Minor Alterations to the London Plan, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and the Housing SPG 2016. |
| 2. | Units C & D would, by reason of their position and proximity to neighbouring properties cause overlooking and loss of privacy which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, particularly No.'s 19 and 23 Lambs Lane South, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | Due to its irregular shape and limited depth, the amenity space for Unit C is of poor quality and given its siting and proximity to No.'s 2 and 4 Wantz Lane, the amenity space for Unit E is of poor quality and not sufficiently private, 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 Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 4. | The proposed dwellings comprising Units C, D & E would, by reason of their height, scale, bulk, mass, siting and proximity to the boundaries of the site, give rise to a cramped appearance and overdevelopment of the site, which would appear as an incongruous and unacceptably dominant, overbearing, unneighbourly and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden setting harmful to the visual amenity of the area and amenity of adjacent occupiers, particularly No.'s 19 and 23 Lambs Lane South, 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 Dovetail Architects via email on 7th December 2017. |
| 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 £6,084. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
