| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its roof form, scale, bulk and position close to the boundaries of the site, appear incongruous, dominant and visually intrusive in the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the Hall Lane Policy Area contrary to Policies DC61 and DC69 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Hall Lane Policy Area SPD.
. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by reason of its excessive depth, scale, bulk, mass and position close to the boundaries of the site, be an unneighbourly development and appear overbearing, dominant and visually intrusive harmful to the amenity of adjacent occupiers, including No. 32 Hall Lane contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of the removal of the lime tree (T2) protected by Tree Preservation Order TPO 2/74, combined with the extent of hardsurfacing and limited soft landscaping, be materially harmful to the character and amenity of the surrounding area, including the Hall Lane Policy Area, contrary to Policies DC60 and DC69 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, the Protection of Trees during Development Supplementary Planning Document and the Hall Lane Policy Area SPD. |
| 4. | 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. |
| 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 £13,380. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 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 reason(s) for it was given to Mr Okeefe via email on 23rd December 2016. |
