| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application site is located outside the proposed village development limits and seeks the erection of two dwellings; consequently, the application is contrary to Core Policy CS02 (a) from the adopted Core Strategy and GSP1 from the emerging Local Plan Part 2 which defines the revised development boundaries. Justification has not been given that the proposal should be assessed against saved policy HOU10 from the Borough-Wide Local Plan (or emerging policy H5) and furthermore the application does not meet the criteria required to be assessed as a rural workers dwelling. No other material considerations have been presented to suggest that there are benefits to the development which should justify allowing a development which is contrary to development plan policy. |
| 2. | The site is located witihin Flood Zone 3 and therefore at high risk of flooding. Core Policy CS13 and emerging policy E1 requires that applications for 'more vulnerable' residential dwelling uses within flood zones 2 and 3 should be supported by a sequential test which is constant with the approach of NPPF Paragraph 162, which states "Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding...The sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding". No sequential test has been submitted as part of the application to identify and discount alternative sites for the development. As such, the proposal is contrary to Core Policy CS13 and emerging policy E1 and contrary to the approach of NPPF Paragraph 162. |
| 3. | The inclusion of two dwellings on the site would result in the overdevelopment of the plot and would form a cramped form of development. The result of this manifests in an inadequate provision of outdoor amenity space for future residents, with both dwellings having gardens which are cramped and poor in their orientation, arrangement and usefulness, with plot 2 of particular concern. The poor amount and quality of outdoor amenity space provided would not be offset by lose and convenient access to public open space, and the enjoyment of the gardens would be further impacted by the adjacency of the proposed access to plot 1. As such, the application fails to comply with HOU07 E, CS03 G, CS09 F and emerging policy A1 which seeks to protect amenity for future occupiers and saved policy HOU17 which seeks to prevent the overdevelopment of plots. |
| 4. | Use of the access to Plot 1 would result in an unacceptable amount of noise and disturbance to residents of 7 Green Lane and Plot 2 due to the lack of distance between the access, parking and turning areas, and the neighbouring dwellings. The resulting disturbances would be harmful to their amenity. This would be contrary to HOU07 E, CS03 G, CS09 F and emerging policy A1 which seeks to protect neighbouring amenity. |
| 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. |
