| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, mass, height and unsatisfactory relationship with neighbouring buildings, appear as an unacceptably dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area and the visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document and the guidance in the National Planning policy Framework. |
| 2. | The development would fail to provide any on-site car parking for the proposed residential properties which would be likely to result in pressures on on-street parking in the adjoining controlled parking zone that in turn would result in an unacceptable overspill of vehicles onto the adjoining roads outside of the zone to the detriment of residential amenity contrary to Policies DC2, DC33 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | In the absence of a planning obligation 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. |
| 4. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: During consideration by the committee, members placed different weight on the planning merits and decided to refuse planning permission. |
| 5. | 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 £6,100. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
