| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The site is within tidal Flood Zone 3a and would not provide a safe form of accommodation within a flood event. The submittedFlood Risk Assessment demonstrates that in a 1:200 plus Climate Change flood event the ground floor would flood by 0.31 metres. The residential accommodation would be at greater risk of flooding in comparison with the previous use of the property. In a flood risk event, the development would create a potential danger for loss of life - with there being similar concerns to the presence of sleeping accommodation on the ground floor.
As such, the proposal would not comply with policy CS13 which requires that development is directed away from areas at the greatest risk of flooding and NPPF paragraph 167 d) which requires that development located in a Flood Zone that will be at risk must be able to be safely managed. |
| 2. | The kitchen at the rear of the flat would not have any windows which would mean that it would suffer from a lack of day light and ventilation. This would not provide a satisfactory level of amenity for future residents and could provide an oppressive living environment. This is contrary to policy A1 from the Local Plan Part 2 and core policy CS09 F from the adopted Core Strategy which seeks to provide high levels of amenity for all future residents. |
| 3. | The bedroom to the proposed flat is of insufficient size to provide adequate amenity for future residents, with the usable floor area below what is suggested in the Technical Housing Standards: Nationally Described Space Standards document (2015). As such, the application is contrary to the expectations of policies A1 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 and CS09 F from the adopted Core Strategy. |
| 4. | The application is located within the Orange 400m to 2.5km+ Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and there has not been an up-to-date Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment or full financial contribution provided as part of this application, which are necessary for the purposes of satisfying the Council's Green Infrastructure Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (GIRAMS) previously known as the Habitat Monitoring and Mitigation Strategy (HMMS). As such the Local Planning Authority cannot fully assess the additional impact upon the designated sites within the Borough, nor does the development secure the appropriate mitigation. Consequently, the application is contrary to Core Policy CS11 from the Core Strategy and Local Plan Part 2 Policy GSP5 which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development. |
| 5. | The proposal does not address the public open space demands of the development, whether by on-site provision or through means to secure financial contributions towards off-site provision, as required by adopted policy H4. It has not been demonstrated that it is otherwise unviable to do so, nor that there is a surplus of open space within the ward rendering the requirement unnecessary. As such, the impacts of the development and the pressures the development places on public open spaces have not been mitigated and the proposal is contrary to policy H4 and the application fails to comply with policies CS14 (Securing appropriate contributions from new Developments), CS15 (Providing and protecting community assets and green infrastructure) and GSP8 (Planning Obligations). |
| 6. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): 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. |
