1)
The benefits of the proposal including the provision of 178 sqm of commercial floorspace would not outweigh the loss of 1235 sqm of general industrial floorspace. As such, the proposal would result in the loss of employment-generating floorspace and would be contrary to Development Plan policies, in particular 'saved' policy E8 of the UDP adopted 25 May 2002.
2)
The development by reason of its alignment, layout, scale, height, mass, bulk, design and materials would not be an attractive, functional or locally distinctive development. As a consequence it would not visually or physically integrate into the townscape and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Development Plan policies, in particular CL1, CL2 and CL3 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 and 'saved' policy CD63 of the UDP as well as having regard to the Oxford Conservation Area Proposals Statement adopted 9 July 1990.
3)
The development by reason of the amount of off-street car parking provision, a poor quality provision of cycle parking and the absence of a 'permit-free' planning obligation, would fail to encourage more sustainable travel choices, would increase vehicular traffic movements and exacerbate traffic congestion which in turn would harm the free flow and safety of highway users. This would be contrary to Development Plan policies, in particular policies 6.9 and 6.13 of the London Plan adopted July 2011 and policy CT1 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 as well as the Transport Supplementary Planning Document adopted 10 December 2008.
4)
The development by reason of the loss of on-street car parking bays and in the absence of a 'permit-free' planning obligation, would increase on-street parking pressure in an area of already high on-street parking stress which would harm the free flow and safety of highway users. This would be contrary to Development Plan policies, in particular policy 6.13 of the London Plan adopted July 2011, policy CT1 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 and 'saved' policy TR44 of the UDP adopted 25 May 2002 as well as the Transport Supplementary Planning Document adopted 10 December 2008.
5)
In the absence of a satisfactory planning obligation, the applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposed development would mitigate its impact on infrastructure including education facilities, health facilities, community facilities, landscaping, public realm and highways, contrary to policies of the development plan, in particular policies C1, CT1, CR4 and CR6 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010, the Planning Obligations SPD adopted 17 August 2010 and the Transport SPD adopted 10 December 2008.
6)
The applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposed development would make adequate provision for affordable housing, contrary to policies of the development plan, in particular policies 3.12 and 3.13 of the London Plan adopted July 2011, policies C1 and CH2 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010, the Planning Obligations SPD adopted 17 August 2010 and the Mayor of London's Housing SPG adopted November 2011.
7)
The development fails to make adequate provision for amenity space and open space for the residential occupiers of the development. This would be harmful to the amenity of future occupants and contrary to policies of the Development Plan, in particular policy 3.6 of the London Plan adopted July 2011, policies CH2 and CR5 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010, 'saved' policy LR15 of the UDP adopted 25 May 2002 and the Mayor of London's Play and Informal Recreation SPG adopted September 2012.
8)
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not materially worsen existing amenity conditions for neighbouring occupants in terms of sunlight, daylight and overshadowing and has failed to demonstrate that the proposed dwellings would have a suitable standard of accommodation in terms of internal lighting conditions, contrary to policies of the Development Plan, in particular policies 3.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan adopted July 2011 and policy CL5 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 as well as the Mayor of London's Housing SPG adopted November 2011.
9)
The proposal would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking to neighbouring gardens, in particular to 135 Oxford Gardens from the north elevation of the block at 3 Crowthorne Road and the west elevations of the blocks at 5 Crowthorne Road, contrary to Development Plan policies in particular policy 7.6 of the London Plan adopted July 2011 and policy CL5 of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010.
10)
By reason of the development's layout and stacking, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed flats would have an acceptable level of privacy and internal noise exposure. As a result the future occupants would have an unsatisfactory standard of residential accommodation, contrary to Development Plan policies in particular London Plan policy 3.5, Core Strategy policy CL5 and the Mayor of London's Housing SPG adopted November 2011 and the Royal Borough's Housing Standards SPG adopted 2002.
11)
In the absence of a satisfactory Construction Method Statement it has not been demonstrated that the stability of neighbouring buildings could be safeguarded, contrary to the Subterranean Development Supplementary Planning Document adopted 26 May 2009.