| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | Whilst described as an annex, by virtue of its separate parking access and distance to the donor dwelling , the proposal would not be an ancillary form of accommodation to the main dwelling. Tantamount to an independent dwelling, the proposal would not be capable of incorporation with the main dwelling once the need for ancillary accommodation is no longer required. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy H10 from the Local Plan Part 2. |
| 2. | The proposal introduces development outside the settlement limits defined in the Local Plan Part 2 and is therefore considered contrary to adopted policy GSP1 and Core Strategy policies CS1 E, CS2 which seek to direct housing development to sustainable locations and with suitable connections to public footpath networks, shops and services, and public transport connections, but in this location the site is removed from both development limit boundaries, and much further from local centres and amenities, creating a reliance on the private car to meet the day-to-day needs of future occupants.
No justification has provided that the proposal should be assessed against adopted policy H5 or other exception purposes outlined by paragraph 80 of NPPF (2021) and furthermore it does not meet the criteria required for these policies, and nor are there other material considerations presented to justify the departure from the development plan. |
| 3. | No floor plans or elevations have been submitted with this application. As such, it is not clear as to whether occupants would have to travel via the external staircase to access the ground floor bathroom. This is not considered to be acceptable and would not provide a high level of amenity for residents, contrary to policy A1 from the Local Plan Part 2 and policy CS09 F from the Core Strategy. |
| 4. | The application is located within the Green 2.5km+ Indicative Habitat Impact Zone but there has not been a Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment or full financial contribution provided as part of this application, which are necessary for the purposes of satisfying the Council's Green Infrastructure Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (GIRAMS) previously known as the Habitat Monitoring and Mitigation Strategy (HMMS). As such the Local Planning Authority cannot fully assess the additional impact upon the designated sites within the Borough, nor does the development secure the appropriate mitigation. Consequently, the application is contrary to Core Policy CS11 from the Core Strategy and Local Plan Part 2 Policy GSP5 which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development. |
| 5. | The proposal does not address the public open space demands of the development, whether by on-site provision or through means to secure financial contributions towards off-site provision, as required by adopted policy H4. It has not been demonstrated that it is otherwise unviable to do so, nor that there is a surplus of open space within the ward rendering the requirement unnecessary. As such, the impacts of the development and the pressures the development places on public open spaces have not been mitigated and the proposal is contrary to policy H4 and the application fails to comply with policies CS14 (Securing appropriate contributions from new Developments), CS15 (Providing and protecting community assets and green infrastructure) and GSP8 (Planning Obligations). |
| 6. | 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. |
