Planning Search

1)

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed subterranean development would safeguard the structural stability of the existing building and neighbouring structures, contrary to policies contained within the Local Development Framework, in particular policy CL2 of the Core Strategy (adopted December 2010) and the Subterranean Development Supplementary Planning Document (adopted May 2009).

2)

The applicant has failed to demonstrate, by reason of the lack of a detailed tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment, that the proposed subterranean development would safeguard the health of trees of special amenity value on and adjacent to the site, contrary to policies contained in the Core Strategy (adopted December 2010), in particular policy CR6 and the Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document (adopted April 2010).

3)

The applicant has failed to demonstrate appropriate mitigation for the environmental impact of the proposed subterranean development, in particular, the impact of the development on carbon emissions, contrary to policies contained within the Local Development Framework, in particular policy CE1 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 and policies of the Subterranean Development Supplementary Planning Document adopted 26 May 2009.

4)

The proposed basement by reason of its design, fails to provide adequate topsoil or a 15% undeveloped zone in order to protect the green and leafy appearance of the borough, allow for adequate drainage and landscaping and demonstrate a sustainable urban drainage system to reduce the volume and speed of water, all contrary to policies of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010, in particular policy CL2, CE6, CR6 and the Subterranean Development SPD adopted 26 May 2009.

5)

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed front extension would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the host property and conservation area, contrary to policies contained within the Local Development Framework, in particular policies CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL6 of the Core Strategy (adopted 2010) and policies CD47 and CD63 of the 'saved' UDP.

1)

If the proposals were otherwise acceptable, then conditions would be attached to secure that the constructors would be members of the Considerate Constructors Scheme, that development should not commence until a Chartered Civil Engineer (MICE) or Chartered Structural Engineer (MI Struct.E)ÿ had been appointed to supervise the construction works throughout their duration, and that a Construction Traffic Management Plan be submitted in accordance with the criteria set out in para the Subterranean Development SPD (para 7.1.5). This would be to help to minimise the impact of construction on neighbouring residents.

2)

Refused/No pre-app or discussion
To assist applicants in finding solutions to problems arising in relation to their development proposals the Local Planning Authority has produced planning policies, and provided written guidance, all of which are available on the Council's website. A pre-application advice service is also offered. In this case the proposal does not comply with guidance and policies. No pre-application discussions were entered into, but the Council is ready to enter into discussions with the applicants through the advice service to assist in the preparation of any new planning application.

3)

Relevant Policies Used
You are advised that this application was determined by the Local Planning authority with regard to Development Plan policies including relevant policies contained within the London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London adopted July 2011; the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 and the 'Saved' policies of the Unitary Development Plan adopted 25 May 2002.