| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The access to the proposed dwelling would be shared with a public right of way (Ormesby st Margaret with Scratby Footpath 1) which accesses a wooded area to the north of Ormesby St Margaret. The additional vehicular movements associated with the new dwelling are considered by the Local Planning Authority to reduce the desirability and viability of the use of the public footpath. The additional vehicles that would be associated with a new dwelling and the long and narrow nature of the access with limited passing opportunities could create conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. The public footpath should remain available for this use at all times. The proposal would reduce the benefits of the public right of way contrary to policy CS9 paragraph D which aims to provide safe access and convenient pedestrian routes and CS1 paragraph E of the adopted Core Strategy. |
| 2. | The proposed access as submitted is considered by the Local Planning Authority to be of unsuitable to service the proposed dwelling. The access is of a long length and narrow width that is restrictive for the use of larger vehicles. A limited turning head and limited passing areas also creates poor manoeuvrability and restricts emergency vehicles. In addition the access appears unsuitable to be shared by both vehicles and pedestrians together. Accordingly the proposal is considered contrary to criterion C of policy HOU7 of the Borough Wide Local Plan and paragraph e of the adopted Core Strategy. |
| 3. | The site is currently characterised by the trees present. The application site has protected trees both within and adjacent the site. The retention of the protected tree has both visual amenity benefits and natural benefits. Accordingly the proposal is considered contrary to paragraph G of the copy CS9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Sufficient information has not been provided in the form of a 'shadow' Habitat Regulations Assessment detailing both the potential cumulative impacts of the new dwelling upon nearby internationally important protected areas of biodiversity importance and any necessary mitigation measures.
Paragraph 175 of the NPPF sets out that in such circumstances permission should be refused, with 177 removing the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' where Appropriate Assessment cannot rule out adverse effects on the integrity of the habitats site. |
| 4. | The applications has been refused as it does not comply with policies CS1 and CS9 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015) and saved policy HOU7 of the Borough Wide Local Plan (2001) and is recommended for refusal. |
| 5. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT: In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above. |
