| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The amenity space for flats 1, 3, 5 and 7 is of poor quality, given its limited depth, small size and would be overshadowed for most of the day, the lack of private amenity space provision for flats 2, 4, 6 and 8 and the communal amenity space, by reason of its siting adjacent to the north eastern boundary of the site and the proposed car parking spaces, is of poor quality and accessibility harmful to the amenity of future occupiers 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. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its siting and proximity to numerous commercial uses, result in undue noise and disturbance that would be materially harmful to the living conditions and amenity of future occupiers contrary to Policies DC55 and DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 3. | The proposed development would by reason of its height, gabled roof form, scale, bulk, mass and position close to the boundaries of the site, appear dominant, visually intrusive and overbearing in the rear garden harmful to the amenity of neighbouring properties, including overlooking and perceived overlooking, particularly to No. 104 Ingrebourne Gardens, contrary to Policy DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 4. | The cycle and refuse stores would, by reason of their siting and poor accessibility, be an impractical and inconvenient arrangement detrimental to future residential amenity and harmful to highway and pedestrian safety and would impede servicing within the site contrary to Policies DC32, DC34, DC35, DC36 and DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, Policy 6.9 of the London Plan and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 5. | The cumulative impact of the width and siting of the access road, combined with the existing commercial use of part of the site by Patchett Removals Ltd, would impede the vehicular entry and egress of the site harmful to highway and pedestrian safety contrary to Policies DC32 and DC34 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 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 P&R Associates via email on 24th September 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 £10,600. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
