| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed development and the extensions required to facilitate the residential accommodation would, by reason of the 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 reason of the inadequate on-site car parking provision for the retained commercial use at ground floor, 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. |
| 3. | The internal layout and arrangement of the proposed dwellings would result in a poor quality living environment for future occupiers. Outlook from the single bedroom shown to serve Apartment 1 would be poor and compromised by its unsecure position adjacent to the shared access for other flatted accommodation. Furthermore, the window serving the living/dining area of Apartment 3 would have unimpeded views over the amenity area of Apartment 2 resulting in a lack of privacy and overlooking. Those elements, in addition to scale of development, are viewed to compromise the quality of the living accommodation which would therefore be detrimental to the future amenity of residents. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of London Plan Policy 3.5 and Policy DC61 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 01-03-2018 |
