| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | 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.
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 for these policies, and nor are there other material considerations presented to justify the departure from the development plan. |
| 2. | The introduction of a pair of semi-detached dwellings within the garden of Tarn House would result in the overdevelopment of the plot and a cramped form of development. The application site as an existing dwelling does benefit from a sufficient curtilage - and whilst it does currently have adequate outdoor amenity space for the existing dwelling of this size, the two new dwellings within the the garden would substantially reduce usable outdoor space for the donor dwelling and result in cramped gardens for one of the proposed dwellings as well.
This is contrary to adopted policy CS09 A and adopted policy A2 A which seeks to ensure that development respects the surrounding built character and adopted policies CS09 F and A1 which both seek to protect the amenity of existing and future residents. |
| 3. | No tree report or arboricultural impact assessment has been provided as part of the application. It has therefore not been demonstrated that the ash tree in the north-eastern corner of the site (which is protected as part of TPO No.1 2022) would not be harmed by the development. This is contrary to the aims of Core Policies CS09 G and CS11 G from the adopted Core Strategy, and Local Plan Part 2 policy E4 which seek to protect the Borough's biodiversity assets. |
| 4. | The application is located within the orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone but there has not been a Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment or 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. | No details have been provided to demonstrate how or whether the new properties could be connected to the mains sewer system, nor whether there is adequate capacity in the sewer network to satisfactorily dispose of the sewage generated by the development 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, and the development would not be able to satisfy the requirement to demonstrate no detrimental impact as required by the Habitats Regulations. |
| 6. | 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). |
| 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. |
