| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed detached bungalow would, by reason of its prominent rear garden location, height, bulk and mass and proximity to the boundaries, appear as an incongruous, overbearing and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden setting which would be harmful to the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The layout of the development would, by reason of the dwelling siting, proportions and proximity to the boundaries of the plot, give rise to a cramped appearance and overdevelopment of the site, which would be harmful to the character of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD. |
| 3. | The proposal, by reason of the cramped and poor quality garden areas, is considered to result in an over-development of the site to the detriment of the amenity of future residential occupiers and associated living environment. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate on site car parking provision for the donor property, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity contrary to Policies DC2 and DC33 of the LDF Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 5. | In the absence of a legal agreement 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. |
| 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 reasons for it was given to the agent Ananth Nair of AA Studio Architecture, via email on 12/12/16. |
| 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 £5,200. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
