| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed variation to Condition 11 seeks to remove all requirements to ensure protection of the trees subject to preservation orders and does so on the basis that the access details are yet to be agreed and on the assumption that only highways considerations should be taken into account.
However, proposing a variation which seeks to remove a requirement to accommodate tree protection measures in design and construction is to disregard the value of the trees the subject of the preservation order. The trees affected by the proposed means of access into the site are positioned prominently towards the front of the plot at Dovedale and play an important role in the visual amenity of the street scene and contribute towards the landscape character of the area where wooded skylines are key sensitives providing a sense of containment. The loss of these Category B trees would therefore cause harm to the character of the area and this loss could not be offset by replacement planting elsewhere on the site which would be in a less prominent location and therefore not provide the same contribution to visual amenity and character.
As such, this application is contrary to adopted Local Plan Part 2 policies E4 and A2(e) and Core Policies CS09 G and CS11 which seek to retain existing trees within new developments to ensure mature planting from the outset. |
| 2. | The applicant seeks to justify removal of the need to include tree protection measures in the road design in order to provide the required visibility splays for the hitherto-approved form of access. However it has been demonstrated that the protected trees do affect the provision of visibility splays for this development, and therefore highway safety is not compromised by the retention of the trees. Tree T24 is located 5.9 metres away from the pavement edge and therefore neither the location of the existing trees nor their associated root protection areas will have an impact on the applicants ability to provide the required visibility splays as required by condition 11.
As such, insufficient reason has been given to warrant the removal of the need to include tree protection measures in the design of the access as set out by condition 11, and it has not been demonstrated that it is inappropriate or impractical to retain the trees, as such the proposal is contrary to adopted policies E4 and A2 from the Local Plan Part 2. |
| 3. | The applicant has proposed that their intended road design cannot be accommodated with the protected trees retained. However, the indicative plans provided to demonstrate the intended design of the road are inappropriate for the scale development as approved and the constraints of the application site. There is no justification for insisting that the condition should be amended at the expense of ensuring the health and continued vitality of protected trees which are in good health, through an appropriately-worded condition, in order to accommodate a road design for a private access drive to serve 7 approved dwellings which is suggested to be capable of being built to a fully adoptable standard capable of serving 30 dwellings, which requires footpaths either side of a wider-than-necessary carriageway, which would compromise the trees.
Given that the condition is proposed to be amended to facilitate a design of road which has a bell-mouth junction, not a crossing over the existing footpath as specified by the Local Highway Authority (Norfolk County Council), the new access road junction would therefore create poor legibility in the pedestrian / highway network because road users and residents would expect this road to provide for a much larger quantum of development and it would be out of keeping with the access roads in the area which serve developments of a similar scale (such as at Oaklands Drive). The application is therefore contrary to core policy CS09 A, C and D from the adopted Core Strategy as well as adopted policy A2 B, C and D from the Local Plan Part 2. |
| 4. | The detailed access plan submitted in support of this application (drawing reference: 045/2021/11 P2) shows the proposed private drive extending beyond the boundaries of the red line within site location plan 2295.18.2E as approved within outline planning permission ref. 06/18/0545/O. As such this application seeks an amendment that aims to facilitate development outside of the application site area and therefore cannot be dealt with through either a Section 73 variation of condition application nor through reserved matters proposals for the layout of the site. |
| 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. |
