| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development would, by reason of its height, bulk and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene harmful to the appearance of the surrounding area and existing terraced row contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development would, by way of the extensions required to facilitate the new residential units, result in the loss of primary windows to the adjoining property to the detriment of the amenity of existing/future occupiers, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate on-site car parking provision for the residential units, result in unacceptable parking overspill/demand onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity, to the detriment of the safety of pedestrians and other road users, contrary to Policies DC32 and DC33 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | 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. |
| 5. | 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 £2,680. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
| 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 agent in writing 13th March 2017. |
