| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal introduces development outside the settlement limits defined in the proposals map and is therefore considered contrary to adopted policy GSP1 and Core Strategy policy CS2 which seek to direct housing development to sustainable locations. Justification has not been given 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. |
| 2. | The site has a lack of safe pedestrian access to the local amenities within the village and therefore it is considered that there would be a reliance on the private car for future occupants of the proposed development. As such it would be contrary to core policy CS01 (e) from the adopted Core Strategy, which seeks to ensure that new developments provide easy access for everyone to jobs, shops and community facilities by walking, cycling and public transport. Furthermore, it is considered that the application would not comply with core policy CS02 from the adopted Core Strategy which seeks to balance the delivery of new homes with the creation of self-contained communities and reducing the need to travel. |
| 3. | The insertion of the private drive to the north of the historic property, along with the increased density, will have an urbanising and detrimental impact on the setting of the non-designated heritage asset due to the juxtaposition with the natural and historic characteristics of the plot. The application is therefore contrary to policy E5 and core policy CS10 which seek to conserve and enhance the significance of the borough's heritage assets and their settings. The proposal is also contrary to core policy CS09 A adopted policy A2 A and with the Filby neighbourhood plan policy H2 which requires proposals to repsect the surrounding built form and development. |
| 4. | The application is located within the Red 'within 400m' Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and as such a bespoke Habitats Regulations Assessment with an Appropriate Assessment and contribution to the Council's Habitat Monitoring and Mitigation Strategy (HMMS) is required. No bespoke HRA have been received and no HMMS contribution has been received and and therefore no mitigation provided. The proposal is contrary therefore with Adopted Core Strategy policy CS11(a), (b) and (g) and Local Plan Part 2 Policy GSP5 where there is a duty to avoid cumulative impacts on proximate designated internationally protected wildlife sites or apply mitigation. |
| 5. | No details have been provided to demonstrate how the properties would be connected to the mains sewer system or whether there is capacity in the sewer network to address the sewage generated without causing risks of potential harm to the designated nationally and internationally-protected sites from increased nutrient loading and nitrification; as such in the absence of satisfactory details and bespoke ecological appropriate assessment of the risks and consequences, the application cannot be said to be able to avoid an unacceptable impact on designated sites and therefore is contrary to adopted policies GSP5 and I3 from the Local Plan Part 2 and Core Policy CS11 from the adopted Core Strategy. |
| 6. | It has not been demonstrated as part of the application whether the sewer network relies on a combined or foul-specific sewer system along Thrigby Road. If the system does not have capacity it could present a risk of surcharge and flooding as well as ecological concerns. The application is therefore contrary to adopted policy I3 from the Local Plan Part 2 which requires that where new development is proposed, adequate foul water treatment and disposal infrastructure already exists or can be made available. |
| 7. | Due to the positioning of the access in close proximity to the northern wall of The Thatchers, the resulting vehicle movements would result in an unacceptable amount of noise and disturbance to occupiers of the donor property, which would be harmful to their amenity. This would be contrary to CS09 F and A1 which seeks to protect neighbouring amenity. |
| 8. | 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 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 adopted Policy H4. |
| 9. | 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. |
