| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its shallow roof form, design, fenestration, height, scale, bulk and mass, appear incongruous, dominant and visually intrusive in the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed layout of the dwelling to the north of the site 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. | Due to its limited depth and small size, the amenity space for four bedroom, six person dwelling to the north of the site is of poor quality, which 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 Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of its height, scale, bulk, mass, siting and proximity to the boundaries of the site, appear unacceptably dominant, overbearing, unneighbourly and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden environment and result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties, as well as undue overlooking and loss of privacy to No. 15 Spencer Crescent, including their rear garden, which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, 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 J Dunne Associates via email on 14th December 2018. |
| 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 £4,180. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
