| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development by reason of its unsafe pedestrian access to the site and potential conflict between future pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles entering, exiting and/or servicing the site, would compromise the safety of future occupiers and visitors due to the poor and unsafe access and lack of visitor parking arrangements for the new dwellings with particular regard to the conflict between vehicle, cycle and pedestrian movements associated with proposed use to be serviced by the existing narrow access lane therefore contrary to Policies DC32, DC34, DC35 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD |
| 2. | The proposed development, by reason of its poor design and site layout, private amenity provision and internal arrangements, would result in inadequate living conditions and security measures for future occupiers and have an undue impact on the neighbouring amenity in regard to its refuse arrangements thereby contrary to London Plan Policy 3.5, the guidance contained within Residential Design SPD and Policies DC36, DC61 and DC63 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | 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. |
| 4. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: During consideration by the committee, members placed different weight on the planning merits and decided to refuse planning permission. |
