OcellaWeb

No.	Condition Text
1.	The proposed replacement of the existing clay roof tiles to slate and the grey colour render front elevation, grey colour fascia and rainwater goods shown would be visually intrusive and harmful to the character and appearance of the subject dwelling and wider conservation area setting. As such the development would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area. The development would conflict with policies DC61, DC64 and DC68 of the LDF and the objectives of the NPPF. The development also fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Gidea Park Conservation Area, therefore contrary to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
2.	Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: Consideration was given to seeking amendments, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, it was necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application.

No.

Condition Text

The proposed replacement of the existing clay roof tiles to slate and the grey colour render front elevation, grey colour fascia and rainwater goods shown would be visually intrusive and harmful to the character and appearance of the subject dwelling and wider conservation area setting. As such the development would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area. The development would conflict with policies DC61, DC64 and DC68 of the LDF and the objectives of the NPPF. The development also fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Gidea Park Conservation Area, therefore contrary to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: Consideration was given to seeking amendments, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, it was necessary to issue a decision as close to the statutory timeframe as possible as opposed to seeking amendments which would have significantly delayed the application.