Planning Search

1)

The proposed alterations to the elevation fronting Danvers Street (including insertion of a new window, new cornice, entrance door and a garage door), the extension of the existing boundary railings and the construction of an access ramp, by virtue of their location, size, design and materials, would harm the character and appearance of the building and conservation area and the setting of the listed buildings. Therefore the proposal would conflict with Council policy, in particular Core Strategy policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4 and CR3, 'saved' UDP policies CD47 and CD63 and the recommendations of the Cheyne Conservation Area Proposal Statement.

2)

The proposed extension to the existing crossover would result in the loss of one on-street resident's parking bay and its replacement with a sub-standard off-street parking space which would have both a cumulative impact on parking stress in the immediate area and harm pedestrian safety. The proposal is thus contrary to Council policy, in particular Core Strategy policies CT1 and CR4 and the recommendations of the Transport SPD.

3)

The proposed ramp and railings on the public footway would unduly constrict pedestrian movement contrary to Council policy, in particular Core Strategy policy CT1 and CR3 and the recommendations of the Transport SPD.

4)

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed subterranean development would not harm the structural stability of the listed building, listed wall and neighbouring properties. As such the proposal would conflict with Council policy, in particular Core Srategy policies CL2 criterion (g) and the recommendations of the Subterranean Development SPD.

5)

The proposed replacement an existing sash window with a timber framed french door and Juliet balcony in the rear elevation due to the design and location would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the building and the conservation area contrary to the Council's policies, in particular Core Strategy Policies CL2, CL3 and CL6 and 'saved' UDP Policy CD63.

6)

The proposed car stacker, due to its location underneath the existing garden and lack of provision for appropriate planting and drainage, would result in harm to the character of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building and impact on surface water flooding. The proposal is contrary to the Council's policies, in particular Policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4 and CE2 and guidance contained in the Subterranean Development SPD and the Cheyne Conservation Area Proposals Statement.

7)

The proposed extension at lower ground floor level within the front lightwell, due to its height, would harm the character and appearance of the building and conservation area and the setting of the listed buildings. The proposal fails to comply with Council policies, in particular policies CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL4 and 'saved' UDP policies CD47 and CD63 and guidance contained in the Cheyne Conservation Area Proposal Statement.

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.