1)
The proposed development, due to its scale, mass and detailed design, fails to respect the existing context and fails to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance, and views within and into, the Pembridge Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II listed buildings on Pembridge Gardens. The proposals are contrary to policies of the development plan, in particular policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4, CL11, CL12, CR2 and CR3.
2)
The proposed development, due to the alterations to the building line on Notting Hill Gate, fail to maintain the free passage of pedestrians and fails to provide improvements to the pedestrian environment, contrary to policies of the development plan, in particular policies CT1, CR3 and CR4 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 and the Transport Supplementary Planning Document adopted 2008.
3)
The proposed redevelopment, as a result of the loss of retail units and retail floorspace, would fail to secure the success and vitality of the Notting Hill Gate town centre, contrary to policies contained in the development plan, in particular policies CF3 and CP16 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010.
4)
The proposed roof terraces at first and third floor levels, by reason of their location and proximity to existing windows within Radford House to the north would cause a significant loss of privacy and noise disturbance and would cause harm to the living conditions of those adjoining units, contrary to the policies contained in the development plan, in particular policies CE6 and CL5 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010.
5)
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development could not make a contribution towards affordable housing in the Borough, contrary to policies contained in the development plan, in particular policy CH2 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document 2010.
6)
In the absence of a completed satisfactory section 106 agreement to secure the necessary planning obligations, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would contribute towards footway improvements and would provide the replacement of trees on the footway that are required as a result of the development, contrary to policies of the development plan, in particular policies C1, CR6 and CT1 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010, the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document 2010.
7)
In the absence of public benefits to outweigh harm, the proposed demolition of the buildings in the Pembridge Conservation Area would be contrary to policies of the development plan, in particular policy CL3 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010.
8)
The application fails to demonstrate that the construction impacts, including noise, vibration and dust would be kept to acceptable levels for the duration of the works. The development would consequently result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would be contrary to the Council's policies in particular Core Strategy policies CL5, CE6 and emerging Core Strategy policy CL7.
9)
The application fails to demonstrate that the basement would be adequately protected from sewer flooding contrary to the Council's policies, in particular emerging Core Strategy policy CL7.