1)
The proposed student accommodation has not been justified and would harm the character, role and function of the Kensal Employment Zone, contrary to policies of the London Plan (adopted 2011), in particular, policy 3.8, and the Core Strategy (adopted 2010), in particular, policies CP5 and CF5.
2)
The proposed development would result in the loss of two dwellinghouses, contrary to policies of the Core Strategy (adopted 2010), in particular, policy CH3.
3)
The development, by reason of its scale, height, mass, bulk, design and materials would harm the context, character and appearance of the area and the visual and functional quality of surrounding streets, contrary to policies of the Core Strategy (adopted 2010), in particular, policies CL1, CL2, CR2 and CR4, and the Subterranean Development Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2009).
4)
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the student accommodation and business units would have good daylight amenity, contrary to policies of the Core Strategy (adopted 2010), in particular, policy CL5.
5)
The development, by reason of insufficient cycle parking provision and no associated showering and changing facilities, would fail to provide appropriate alternatives to car use, contrary to policies of the London PLan (adopted 2011), in particular, policy 6.9, policies of the Core Strategy (adopted 2010), in particular, policy CT1, and the Transport Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2008).
6)
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not materially worsen existing amenity conditions for neighbouring occupants in terms of sunlight, daylight and privacy, contrary to the Core Strategy (adopted 2010), in particular, policy CL5.
7)
In the absence of a satisfactory Construction Method Statement it has not been demonstrated that the proposed subterranean development would safeguard the stability of neighbouring buildings, contrary to the Subterranean Development Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2009).
8)
The proposed development does not provide appropriate measures to reduce surface water run-off, contrary to the London Plan (adopted 2011), in particular, policies 5.3 and 5.13, and the Core Strategy (adopted 2010), in particular, policy CE2.
9)
In the absence of a satisfactory planning obligation, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would mitigate its impact on local infrastructure, on-street parking and highways, contrary to policies of the development plan, in particular, policies of the Core Strategy (adopted 2010), including, policies C1 and CT1, the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2010) and the Transport Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2008).
10)
The applicant has failed to demonstrate, by reason of a lack of information, that the proposed development would make adequate provision for affordable housing, contrary to policies contained in the London Plan (adopted 2011), in particular, policies 3.12 and 3.13 and policies of the Core Strategy (adopted 2010), in particular, policies C1 and CH2.