| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The erection of a dwelling on this site would amount to the over-development of the plot and would result in a cramped form of development which would have a poor relationship with the neighbouring properties and appear out of keeping in the street scene which is exacerbated by the limited distance to neighbouring dwellings, lack of outdoor space and massing of the building. This would be contrary to core policy CS09 A and adopted policy A2 A which seek to ensure that development respects the surrounding built character. |
| 2. | Due to the close proximity to the eastern boundary and its height, the proposed dwelling would result in an increased sense of enclosure to occupiers of the terrace to the east and would have an overbearing and domineering relationship with the neighbouring properties. This would be contrary to CS09 F and A1 which seek to protect neighbouring amenity. |
| 3. | By virtue of the cramped site, the proposed dwelling would have an insufficient provision of private outdoor amenity space for future occupants, contrary to the aims of core policy CS09 F from the adopted Core Strategy which seeks to protect the amenity of existing and future residents. |
| 4. | The limited outdoor amenity space is located to the front of the plot and is proposed to be screened by a 1.5m high fence with a 300mm high trellis. The positioning of the outdoor amenity space would be contrary to adopted policy A2 C which seeks private areas to be to the rear of properties and for a provision of suitable spacing and landscaping around the dwelling. Furthermore, the height of the fence would also be located on the corner of Priory Street and Conway Road and therefore its height would harm the pedestrian experience, reducing the sense of openness and legibility, contrary to adopted policy CS09 D. |
| 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 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. Lack of payment also fails the requirements of policies CS14 (Securing appropriate contributions from new Developments), CS15 (Providing and protecting community assets and green infrastructure) and GSP8 (Planning Obligations). |
| 6. | No Habitats Regulations Assessment has been submitted in support of the application and the £185.93 Habitats Monitoring and Mitigation Scheme contribution has not been paid. As such, the impact on the designated sites within the Borough cannot be sufficiently mitigated and the application does not comply with CS11 and GSP5 which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts on these sites associated with the occupancy of new residential and tourist development by way of a financial contribution. |
| 7. | 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. |
