Planning Search

1)

The application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would make adequate provision for affordable housing, contrary to policies contained in the London Plan, Core Strategy, in particular policy CH2 and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

2)

The application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause harm to living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in terms of sunlight and daylight. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CL5 of the Core Strategy

3)

The application fails to demonstrate that all the non residential uses within the proposed development would adequately offset the environmental impact of the development by achieving the appropriate BREEAM excellent standard. The proposal would fail therefore to meet the aims and objectives of policy, in particular policy CE1 of the Core Strategy.

4)

In the absence of a satisfactory s106 agreement to secure ineligibility from obtaining car parking permits, the proposed development would put undue pressure on on-street car parking and would therefore be contrary to policy CT1 (c) of the Core Strategy and the Transport Supplementary Planning Document.

5)

In the absence of a satisfactory s106 agreement to secure necessary planning obligations, the proposal would result in unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure (including education, health and community facilities) and would therefore be contrary to policy C1 of the Core Strategy and the Planning Obligations 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 despite pre-apps and discussions
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, and improvements recommended during assessment of the application. 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)

Reason for refusal two could potentially be overcome by submitting an adequate sunlight and daylight report that demonstrates that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring sunlight and daylight. The submitted daylight and sunlight report is currently inadequate in two areas. Firstly, it does not include results for all the properties that are likely to be affected by the development, most notably 281 King's Road. Secondly, the submitted daylight and sunlight report does not calculate all the requirements of the BRE as it does not include whether the area of the working plane in a room which can receive direct skylight is reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value.

4)

Reasons for refusal four and five can be overcome by entering into a section 106 agreement. In the eventuality of this application going to appeal, the contents of this can be agreed with the council prior to its submission. In the eventuality of this being agreed, this reason for refusal would be withdrawn.