| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed layout of the development would, by reason of the number of units proposed, lack of internal space, proposed room types, poor outlook and limited light, result in substandard accommodation for future residents. It is considered the development accordingly fails to justify the density proposed and represents an over-development of the site contrary to policies DC2 and DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, the Technical Housing Standards, the Housing Standards Minor Alterations to the London Plan, policy 3.5 of the London Plan and the Housing SPG 2016. |
| 2. | The two storey side and rear extensions would, by reason of their excessive depth, poor design, height, scale, bulk, mass and position on the boundaries of the site, combined with the narrow width of the plot and its prominent corner location, appear incongruous, overbearing and visually intrusive in the streetscene and give rise to an unduly cramped appearance and overdevelopment harmful to the open and spacious character of the streetscene contrary to policy DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of its poor standard of internal layout, excessive depth, height, scale, bulk, mass and position on the boundaries of the site, result in unacceptable noise, general disturbance and loss of light to nearby properties, particularly No. 2 Blewitts Cottages, rendering it an unneighbourly development, overbearing, dominant and visually intrusive in the rear garden environment contrary to policies DC4 and DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD. |
| 4. | Due to the site layout, the amenity space for the proposed flats is not particularly useable or of a high quality given its lack of accessibility for future occupiers of the flats, small size, triangular shape and siting adjacent to the car parking area. The insufficient provision of amenity space for the proposed flats would result in a cramped layout harmful to the amenity of future occupiers contrary to policy DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Design for Living Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 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. | 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 £3,274.80. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 7. | 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 were given to Mr Bansal via email on 26th January 2017. |
