| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its siting, proportions and proximity to the boundaries of the site, combined with the narrow width of the plot and the roof form, excessive depth, scale and siting of the two storey rear projection, appear incongruous, dominant and visually intrusive and give rise to a cramped appearance and overdevelopment harmful to the open and spacious character of the streetscene and rear garden environment contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed layout of the development 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. |
| 3. | The proposal, by reason of the creation of two residential units and the provision of one car parking space, combined with no off street car parking provision for the donor property, would result in increased parking congestion in surrounding streets, contrary to Policies DC32 and DC33 of the Local Development Framework and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 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. | 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 Hussain via email on 23rd August 2016. |
| 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 £1,600. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
