| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The extension is out of character with the host property and terrace as a whole and would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and wider character of the area by virtue of its scale and massing and use of parapets. It would have a domineering effect on the terrace and create an imbalance. This is contrary to policy H9 A requires that proposals "maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the building, street scene, its immediate surroundings and the wider townscape or landscape" and CS09 A which seeks to ensure that development is respectful of the surrounding built context.
The proposed development is not reflective of good design and is therefore contrary to good design criteria in paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF]. |
| 2. | The scale, including height, width and bulk of the extension will result in a two storey flank walls on both common boundary's that will increase the sense of enclosure to neighbouring properties and will result in an overbearing and dominating relationship with the neighbouring properties also impacting on their outlook and having a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity. It will also cause unacceptable levels of overshadowing to no.5 Rowan Way. This is contrary to adopted Local Plan Part 2 policies H9 B and A1 and Core Strategy policy CS09 F which all seek to protect neighbouring amenity. |
| 3. | The rear extension is considered to result in the over-development of the site and this is reflected in the resultant loss of garden space which is already limited. This contributes to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposal and would be harmful to the amenity of residents of the subject property. This is contrary to adopted Local Plan Part 2 policies H9 C and A1 and Core Strategy policy CS09 F which seek to protect residential amenity and furthermore is contrary to paragraphs 124 d) and 130 f) of the NPPF |
| 4. | 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. |
