| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The inclusion of 2 properties on this plot would lead to the overdevelopment of the site which would result in there being insufficient room to provide both adequate parking and outdoor amenity space to both properties. This would be contrary to saved policy HOU17 which seeks to ensure that development is appropriate in scale for the site. By virtue of this overdevelopment, the properties would not have active frontages onto the street which would be contrary to the aims of CS09 C from the adopted Core Strategy. |
| 2. | The unclassified road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the development proposed, by reason of its restricted width and lack of passing and turning provision. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety. Contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS16 from the adopted Core Strategy. |
| 3. | The application site is located within Flood Zone 3A and is therefore at greatest risk of flooding. A site specific Flood Risk Assessment has not been provided meaning the full risk from future flood events cannot be fully assessed. This is contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 163 from the NPPF and the aims of Core Policy CS13 from the adopted Core Strategy to mitigate the risk arising from flooding. |
| 4. | The application site is located within the 400m to 2.5km Orange Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and as such requires a HRA and HMMS payment of £110 per dwelling. These have not been provided as part of this application. As such the Local Planning Authority cannot fully assess the additional in-combination impact upon the Natura2000 sites within the Borough, nor can it is it able to secure the appropriate mitigation. Consequently, the application is contrary with Core Policy CS11 from the adopted Core Strategy. |
| 5. | 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. |
