No.Condition Text
1.The proposed development would, by reason of its height, bulk, mass and rear projection appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene and the rear garden environment, harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area and would fail to maintain or enhance the special character of the Gidea Park Special Character Area contrary to Policies DC61 and DC69 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.
2.The proposal would, by reason of its layout and scale result in an unsatisfactory relationship between the proposed development and neighbouring housing leading to a loss of outlook and sense of enclosure for existing residents contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.
3.The proposed development would, by reason of its position and proximity to neighbouring properties cause overlooking and loss of privacy which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.
4.The proposed development would, by reason of the car parking provision in excess of the Council's car parking standards would fail to limit the use of the private car and not promote sustainable transport uses contrary to be promote car use , result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity and contrary to Policies CP10 and DC33 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.
5.The proposal would, by reason of noise and disturbance caused by the creation of a car park adjacent to the private rear gardens of neighbouring residential dwellings with vehicles parking and manoeuvring and vehicle lighting, particularly during the evening hours be unacceptably detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of adjacent properties, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.
6.The proposed vehicular access point opposite the junction with Severn Avenue requires right hand turning into the site travelling westwards on Main Road which would create conflict with drivers turning right into Severn Avenue from the opposite direction, leading to interference with the free and safe flow of traffic and cause danger and inconvenience to highway users contrary to policy DC32 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.
7.The proposed boundary treatment on the north east side of the vehicle exit would conflict with the pedestrian visibility splay required for drivers and pedestrians, and the 'bell mouth arrangement' of the entrance and exit will be to the detriment of the comfort and safety of pedestrians, contrary to Policies DC32 and DC34 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.
8.The proposed development would result in a sub-standard level of accommodation, with units providing single aspects, insufficient access to daylight and sunlight and inadequate levels of private amenity space, to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers contrary to Policies CP2, DC2,DC62 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2016.
9.In the absence of suitable measures to mitigate air quality impact either on or off-site, the proposed development would not be air quality neutral in terms of its transport and building emissions and would not address local problems of air quality in an Air Quality Management Area, contrary to Policy 7.14 of the London Plan and the Mayor's Sustainable Design and Construction SPG.
10.The proposed development proposes the loss of a significant number of trees on site and will result in the loss of three on the public footway without adequate replacement contrary to policies DC60 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD
11.In the absence of a legal agreement to secure sufficient affordable housing, the proposal fails to comply with the principle of policies DC6, DC72 of the Development Control Policies DPD and policies 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 and 8.2 of the London Plan.
12.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 Kim Rickards of McCarthy and Stone by email, on 30th November 2017.
13.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 £48,901 (subject to indexation). Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website.