| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed rear extension by reason of its excessive width, depth, height and position close to the boundaries of the site and cumulative impact having regard to historic extensions would fail to be subordinate or in keeping with architectural design of the host building and would appear as an overly bulky structure and appear out of proportion to the host dwelling when viewed from adjoining sites contrary to Policy DC61, Draft Local Plan policies 7 and 26 and the design guidance within the Council's Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD. |
| 2. | The proposed rear extension would, by reason of its excessive width, depth, height and position close to the boundaries of the site, form an intrusive and unneighbourly development as well as creating an oppressive boundary which would have an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 7 of the Draft Local Plan. |
| 3. | The proposed raised patio area would exacerbate the impacts of the proposed extension by increasing the visual bulk through the formation of privacy screening to the additional projection beyond the rear extension, detrimental to the outlook of the unattached neighbour to the east and contributing further to an oppressive boundary which would have an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 7 of the Draft Local Plan. |
| 4. | 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 the Agent by email on the 14th September 2021. |
