| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The development would, by reason of the dwelling siting, height and proximity to the boundaries of the plot, give rise to a cramped appearance and overdevelopment of the site, which would be harmful to the streetscene and character of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD. |
| 2. | The proposed development by reason of its position and proximity to the neighbouring properties would appear as an incongruous, overbearing and visually intrusive feature in the rear garden setting, and result in a loss of privacy, which would have a serious and adverse effect on the living conditions of the adjacent occupiers, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposal, by reason of the cramped and poor quality garden area, is considered to result in an over-development of the site to the detriment of the amenity of future residential occupiers and associated living environment. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 4. | The proposal fails to provide suitable measures to address the infrastructure needs arising from the development, contrary to Policy DC72 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations. |
| 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 £1,320. 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 Mr John Monnoyer via email on 07/02/18. |
