| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed first floor rear extension would, by reason of its excessive width, bulk and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden, result in disproportionate additions to the original property creating a visually heavy roof and accordingly would appear incongruous and out of keeping in the area, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan. |
| 2. | The proposed first floor rear extension would, by reason of its depth, excessive height and position close to the boundaries of the site, be an intrusive and unneighbourly development as well as having an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document |
| 3. | 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 Nawab (agent) by e-mail on 14/10/20. |
| 4. | The applicant is advised planning permission does not give consent for any part of the development including guttering and fascias to encroach onto any land not within the applicant's ownership. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) have been informed in an e-mail of the 30th September 2020 by the agent that the gutter is shared by our applicant and the neighbours, as such the LPA have accepted this information in good faith, mindful that the LPA do not have access to Land Registry records.
The completion of a wrong certification on an application form may invalidate any appeal submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. |
