| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its external appearance, 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. |
| 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 result in a sub-standard level of accommodation, with units having no access to individual private amenity space, to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers contrary to Policies CP2, DC2, DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, the Residential Design SPD and policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2016. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate on site car parking provision, result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity and contrary to Policy DC33 of the LDF Core Strategy and 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 reason(s) for it was given to the planning agent by email on 13th December 2017. |
| 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 £4,360 (subject to indexation). Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
