| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal would create a dwelling in a remote part of Caister outside defined development limits and at considerable distance from the defined larger village development boundary, and in a very inaccessible location dependent on the private motor car.
This is considered to conflict with policies CS1 seeking sustainable development, CS2 where the hierarchy of sustainable development directs development to locations served by appropriate facilities and infrastructure and within defined development limits, GSP1 which states that development will not be permitted outside development limits except in very limited circumstances, and CS16 which expects new development to be in sustainable locations which minimise the need to travel and maximise the use of sustainable transport modes and which will not have an adverse impact on the safety and efficiency of the local road network for all users including existing the community. |
| 2. | The proposal has not been submitted as an exception to the presumption against new residential dwellings outside development limits as set out in policies HOU10, CS2, GSP1 and H5, nor does it meet the criteria set out in paragraph 80 of NPPF (2021). The need for a new open-market dwelling in this location is not supported by policy CS3 because the current five year housing supply is sufficient as set out in paragraph 75 of NPPF 2021 and the Council's statement of supply of December 2020 and the emergent LPP2 which upon imminent adoption will confirm the supply for at least a further year, and so the decision is made in accordance with the primacy of the development plan in the first instance. |
| 3. | Although there is some benefits associated with new dwellings predominantly relating to the construction jobs created, this is considered short-term and small scale. Any benefits associated with creating a new dwelling in rural community are very limited given the lack of facilities in the settlement. As such there are not considered to be any material considerations sufficient to outweigh the conflict with the development plan, and the application must be refused. |
| 4. | The applicant has not submitted a Habitat Regulations Assessment and as a result have not demonstrated there would be no impact on protected international wildlife sites, nor provided the associated habitats mitigation and management strategy payment to address those impacts. This is considered contrary to the requirements of policy CS11 (g) where development is required to mitigate impact. |
