| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its use would over proliferate the retail use within the out of centre location. In addition, it would restrict the future redevelopment of neighbouring plots and prejudice the comprehensive redevelopment of the adjoining sites. The development would therefore give rise to poor quality isolated retail development which would undermine the wider aspirations for the site and surrounding area contrary to Policy 2 of the Local Plan 2021 and the SSA 12. |
| 2. | The proposal is for a main town centre use outside of a town centre on non-designated land (as defined by the Proposals Map 2021), without demonstration of any special circumstances or justification for not complying with Local Plan Policies 2, 3 and 13, and London Plan Policy H1. And by virtue of its location in one of the few areas of the Borough with significant regeneration potential, the development would prejudice the deliverability of much-needed homes. It would be harmful to the health of district and local centres and set a precedent for development that does not comply with the Local Plan and the London Plan. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies 2, 3 and 13 of the Local Plan 2021 and Polices H1 and GG2 of the London Plan 2021.aspirations for the site and surrounding area contrary to Policy 2 of the Local Plan 2021 and the and the SSA 12. |
| 3. | 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 total CIL payable would be £3,770.
Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 4. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: Consideration was given to seeking further clarifications and justifications, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, it was necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application. |
