Planning Search

1)

The proposal, by reason of the design, use of materials and full width glazed front elevation of the roof extension, would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the building or the wider Hans Town Conservation Area, contrary to policies CL1, CL2 and CL3 of the Core Strategy, adopted December 2010, 'saved' policy CD45, CD55 and CD63 of the Unitary Development Plan 2002, as amended and the guidance contained within the Hans Town Conservation Area Proposals Statement.

2)

The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, that the proposed extension would not have a detrimental impact on the level of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties, nor that the proposed extension would not result in an increased sense of enclosure to the properties surrounding the site. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy CL5 of the Core Strategy, adopted December 2010.

3)

The proposed roof terrace to the rear would result in an increase in overlooking and loss of privacy to properties surrounding the site. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy CL5 of the Core Strategy, adopted December 2010.

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 despite pre-app advice
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, and offers a pre-application advice service. Pre-application advice was sought and provided. Unfortunately, this advice was not adhered to. Nevertheless, the Council is ready to enter into discussions with the applicants through the advice service to assist in the preparation of a new planning application.

3)

The applicant is advised that the third reason for refusal which relates to the roof terrace to the rear, could be overcome by condition requiring this area of the roof to not be used as a roof terrace. If the applicant were to proceed with an appeal at this site, subject to agreement for an appropriately worded condition, the Local Planning Authority would not defend this reason for refusal.