Planning Search

1)

The proposal, would by reason of its height, design to both the front and rear elevations, including the front lightwell, and use of materials, detract from the setting of the Listed Building at 24 Lawrence Street, and would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the wider Cheyne Conservation Area when seen from both public viewpoints and other properties within the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL4 of the Core Strategy, adopted December 2010, 'saved' policy CD63 of the Unitary Development Plan 2002, as amended, and the guidance contained within the Cheyne Conservation Area Proposals Statement.

2)

The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the structural stability of the adjacent listed building would not be at risk from the subterranean extension, due to an inadequate construction method statement. In the absence of this information, the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal would not cause significant harm to the special architectural and historic interest of this Listed Building, contrary to Policies CL2 and CL4 of the Core Strategy, adopted December 2010 and the guidance contained in the Subterranean Development SPD.

3)

In the absence of any outdoor amenity space, the proposal would result in a substandard level of accommodation which would be detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers. As such, the proposals would be contrary to Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (2011), Policies CH2 (h) and CL5 of the Core Strategy and the guidance contained within the London Housing Design Guide.

4)

The proposal fails to make a financial contribution towards infrastructure to meet the additional demands for facilities that would be created by the proposed development. As such, the proposals would be contrary to Policy C1 of the Core Strategy, and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations.

5)

The applicant has failed to agree to enter into a legal agreement to secure the additional property to be residents parking permit free. In the absence of such an agreement, the proposal for an additional residential unit and the associated loss of off-street parking, would result in an increase in on-street parking in the Borough, contrary to Policy CT1 of the Core Strategy, adopted December 2010, and the guidance contained within the Council's adopted Transport Supplementary Planning Document.

1)

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.

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)

The fourth and fifth reasons for refusal relating to the requirement for planning obligations and a permit free clause to be secured by way of a Section 106 agreement, can be overcome with the securing of a legal agreement for the necessary contributions and permit free clause.