1)
The proposed redevelopment would result in the loss of a significant amount of the existing open space on this site, reducing the value of this site as a visual amenity to be enjoyed by residents of nearby property, and harming the character and appearance of this part of the Kensington Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies of the Unitary Development Plan, in particular STRAT 1, STRAT 35, and Policies CD21, CD48, and CD52
2)
The bulk and layout of the proposed development, in particular the bulk of development and the restricted dimensions of the central open space, would result in a densely developed site that relates poorly to the character scale or form of its surroundings. It is considered that the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policies of the Unitary Development Plan, in particular STRAT 5, STRAT 6, and Policies CD25, CD52, CD53, and H11
3)
Given that the existing site provides a valuable contribution to the character and appearance and residential amenity of this part of the Conservation Area, and in the absence of an acceptable scheme for the future development of the site, it is concluded that the proposed demolition of the reservoirs is premature, and contrary to Policy CD51 of the Unitary Development Plan
4)
The proposed southern terrace of new houses would appear dominant and overbearing in its relationship with Thorpe Lodge, and the development along Aubrey Walk would significantly affect the setting of St. George's Church, harming the setting of these Listed buildings contrary to Policy CD61 of the Unitary Development Plan
5)
The existing site generates a relatively low intensity of vehicular and pedestrian activity through the year, busiest in the summer but relatively quiet in the winter months. The proposed development will generate greater levels of such activity throughout the year, with the largest difference being in the presently quieter winter months. As such, the proposed development will lead to a significant reduction in the levels of amenity presently enjoyed by those who reside near the site, contrary to Policies of the Unitary Development Plan, in particular STRAT 1, and Policy CD52.
6)
The use of pedestrian and vehicular gates at the entrances to the site would restrict access to the development, separating the site from the surrounding area, contributing little to the amenity of the area, and being out of character with the predominant form of development locally where residential streets are generally accessible to all and at all times. As such, the proposed gated community is contrary to Policies of the Unitary Development Plan, in particular STRAT 1, STRAT 5, and CD52.
7)
The site is considered suitable for the inclusion of affordable housing, which has not been secured by an appropriate planning obligation as part of the proposed development. As such, the proposals are not considered likely to achieve the provision of affordable housing on this site, and would be contrary to Policies of the Unitary Development Plan, in particular H22 and the proposed draft alterations to this Policy, and fail to respect the advice presented in Circular 6/98.