| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The amenity space for the proposed dwelling is of poor quality, given its irregular shape, small size
and its siting adjacent to the flank wall of the existing single storey rear extension and would be overshadowed for most of the day harmful to the amenity of future occupiers and contrary to Policy DC61 of Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Design for Living Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document. |
| 2. | 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. |
| 3. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: In accordance with para 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, improvements required to make the proposal acceptable were negotiated with Mr Breden via a telephone conversation on 6.03.17. The revisions involved the partial demolition of the existing garage to increase the depth of the car parking spaces and adding one additional car parking space. The agent submitted revised plans on 7th March 2017, but the changes did not address all the reasons for refusal. Notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to Mr Breden during a telephone conversation on 8th March 2017. |
