| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal is considered to be an unsympathetic and inappropriate addition into the traditional form of terraced houses that make up a distinctive character and appearance of the local area around the site. The proposal is incongruous and not representative of any similar developments, additions or alterations in the visible vicinity, nor the overarching style, character or massing that forms the character of the local area. In addition, the form, scale and mass combine with the siting of the development against the very limits of the curtilage, to make the scheme appear as over-development of the site. As such the proposal is contrary to adopted policies HOU18(A) and (B) and BNV18. |
| 2. | The application site adjoins the curtilage of a Grade II* listed building and the setting of the designated Grade II* listed building will be directly impacted by the extension, and there would be direct impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The siting, scale and design of the proposed development will detract from the setting of the Grade II* listed church, and the character, sense of space around the church, and the prominence of the church, would all be eroded by the development on the very edge of the listed building's curtilage.
The proposal will also affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area by introducing an unsympathetic addition to the largely-unaltered form of terrace houses. In combination the proposal will also create a disproportionate and disruptive relationship with the conservation area and Grade II* listed Church of St Peter.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to adopted local development plan policies HOU18(a), BNV18, and CS10, and emerging policy E5 of the draft Local Plan Part 2, as it fails to be in keeping with the character of the area and the setting of the application site, and fails to conserve and enhance the significance of both the neighbouring listed building and its setting, and the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area.
In this case there are no noticeable public benefits presented which are considered sufficient to outweigh the significant levels of 'less than substantial' harm caused to the designated heritage asset, and so the proposal also remains contrary to paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 3. | The application has not been supported by a suitable form of Heritage Impact Assessment or equivalent evidence to suggest that the significant of the heritage assets have been adequately accommodated by the proposal, and failure to do so has possibly contributed to the inability to mitigate the impacts, so the application is also contrary to emerging policy E5 of the draft Local Plan Part 2, and paragraph 194 of the NPPF. |
| 4. | Any proposal which is likely to affect the setting of a grade II* listed building must be considered very carefully, given the significance of the grade II* listed building, and the requirement that great weight should be given to the asset's conservation, in line with NPPF paragraph 199. As such, it is considered that the proposal must be refused, as it is contrary to both the adopted and emerging local development plan and refusing the application will be in line with the expectations of the NPPF gieven there are very limited benefits associated with the proposal, and as there is a statutory duty on the Local Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and its setting, as well as the requirement to pay special attention towards preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, as required by section 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. |
| 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. |
