| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed side extension would, by reason of its position close to the boundaries of the site, be an intrusive and unneighbourly development as well as having an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its visual intrusion into the amenity green, have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding neighbourhood, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed fence component of the development would, by reason of its height, bulk and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, improvements required to make the proposal acceptable were negotiated with Martyn Baker via phone and email from March - June 2020. The revisions involved setting the extension back from the front faÿ¿§ade and increasing the setback of the proposed boundary fence. The applicant declined to make the suggested revisions. |
