| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its design and appearance and its scale, height, bulk and mass, appear as an incongruous and unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature, resulting in an unsympathetic, visually intrusive development which would not preserve or enhance the special character of this part of the Gidea Park Conservation Area contrary to Policies DC61 and DC68 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development makes inadequate provision of suitable amenity space for perspective residential occupiers. In this respect, the proposal would be contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 3. | The proposal would not provide adequate levels of off-street parking for the proposed residential units and retained social club use resulting in increased pressure for on-street parking in the vicinity of the site, inconveniencing existing residents/businesses and adversely affecting highway safety. In this respect, the proposal would be contrary to Policy DC33 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 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. | 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 £9340.00. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 6. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: In accordance with para 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, improvements required to make the proposal acceptable were negotiated with Nikki Dawney of d3 Urban Planning Ltd, via email on 12/1/16. The revisions involved a reduction in the scale, bulk and massing of the extensions and considering a more sympathetic design. Alterations tot eh car parking and serving arrangements were suggested and the provision of amenity areas. The applicant declined to make the suggested revisions. |
