| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed layout of the development would be inadequate resulting in substandard accommodation for future residents through lack of internal space, poor outlook, limited light, undue overlooking, loss of privacy, noise and disturbance from pedestrian and vehicular movements and no pedestrian front entrance for the flats, detrimental to future residential amenity and contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (as amended), the DCLG Technical Housing Standards and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 2. | The amenity space for the ground floor flats is of poor quality, given their small size, layout and would be overshadowed by the balconies of the rear first floor flats harmful to the amenity of future occupiers and 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. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of its poor design, roof form, excessive depth, scale, bulk and position close to the boundaries of the site, appear incongruous, overbearing and visually intrusive in the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | The proposed development would, by reason of its roof form, 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 and result in undue overlooking and loss of privacy harmful to the amenity of adjacent occupiers, including No. 176 Collier row Lane contrary to Policy DC61 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan 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. | In failing to deliver a high quality of design and layout through the deficiencies described in the reasons above, the proposal fails to justify such high density of development and would result in an overdevelopment of the site, contrary to Policies DC2 and DC61 of the LDF Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 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 reason(s) for it was given to Mr Breden via email on 13th January 2017. |
| 8. | 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 £8,562. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
