Planning Search

1)

The rear extension by reason of its size and siting would project beyond the rear building line and closet wing and would not respect the rhythm of the terrace. By infilling a historically valuable open space, the extension would disrupt the prevailing regular relationship between the house and rear garden. The proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to development plan policy in particular Core Strategy policies CL1, CL2 and CL3 and 'saved' UDP policies CD47 and CD63.

2)

The rear extension by reason of its detailed design would not relate well to the parent building, representing an incongruous feature that would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the property and conservation area, contrary to development plan policy in particular CL1, CL2 and CL3 and 'saved' UDP policy CD63.

1)

Policies of Particular Relevance
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.