| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | There is an outstanding Enforcement Notice REFERENCE: ENF/668/19 (APP/B5480/C/21/3283428) relating to 1/1A Writtle Walk. The Council contends that in the absence of confirmation of compliance with the requirements of this notice, that being to cease the use of the first and second floors as a dwelling and on the first floor removal of all cooking equipment including the hob and oven and remove all rubble and debris accumulated when taking steps 1 and 2 that permitted development rights do not apply to those areas subject to the enforcement notice. |
| 2. | The existing building is taller than the adjoining residential dwellings and the total height difference would be approx 9.50m. Whilst it is accepted that tallest part the existing building is already taller than the adjoining dwellings, there would nevertheless be conflict with AB.1(g) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AB of the The Town and Country Planning(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). |
| 3. | The proposals incorporate additional levels to later additions to the subject building permitted through ref: P0850.18. Permission was granted for an extension to the north eastern corner of the building in August 2018. The Council considers that the development would be taking place on parts of the building other than the principal part and there is then conflict with AB.1(a) and AB.1(c) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AB of the The Town and Country Planning(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). |
| 4. | The proposals do not make provision for any parking to serve the new units. In the absence of any compelling evidence otherwise such as a parking stress survey and in view of the low PTAL rating for the site the proposals would contribute to existing parking stress in the locality and contribute to congestion and is therefore in conflict with AB.2.(1)(a) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AB of the The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). |
| 5. | The resultant building would be of a scale wholly removed from adjoining and surrounding premises and would form a prominent and visually intrusive piece of development, overbearing in the context of its immediate surrounds and visible over longer distances through its resultant height and mass. The flank elevation in particular would present as wall of development with little articulation. It is considered that the visual impacts of the development on both the street-scene and local character more generally owing to its resultant height and scale would conflict with AB.2.(1)(e) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AB of the The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). |
| 6. | New views would be achieved at higher levels than existing which would lead to increased overlooking of surrounding premises/rear gardens. It is considered that in this suburban context that any further intensification of existing overlooking or worsening of this would be detrimental to neighbouring amenity. The applicant has not provided any details of overshadowing and in order to reach a view it is considered that this would be necessary in view of the resultant scale of the building. Paragraph W.(3)(b) allows the Local Planning Authority to refuse an application where in its opinion the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the relevant conditions. It is considered that there is conflict with AB.2.(1)(g) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AB of the The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). |
