| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application site as defined by the submitted red line location drawing excludes the grassed area to the western side of the driveway (north of the proposed dwelling) which would remain in the ownership of the donor dwelling. This would result in an awkward relationship with the donor dwelling as the proposed dwelling would fail to have control over this land and therefore the proposed dwelling would not benefit from any obvious curtilage or elevated presence above that of an ancillary building when viewed from the road. This would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS09 C and Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2. |
| 2. | The impact of vehicle movements from the neighbouring unconnected dwelling (the donor dwelling) using the gravel private driveway would result in increased levels of noise and disturbance to occupants of the proposed dwelling due to the proximity of the driveway to the front elevation. This would be particularly noticeable at night-time and will be exacerbated when vehicle headlights shine into the windows on the front elevation, causing further harm to the amenity and enjoyment of the dwelling. This is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policy CS09 F and Local Plan Part 2 policy A1. |
| 3. | The proposal would involve the loss of the chimney stack which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the building and which helps to provide a link back to the historic character of the site and the former uses of the building. The loss of the chimney would see an erosion of this historic character and it has not been justified why the chimney needs to be removed. The removal of the chimney would amount to a degree of less-than-substantial harm to the non-designated heritage asset, and the harm caused is considered to outweigh the minimal public benefits that the proposal provides (which amount to only a very small contribution to the Borough's housing supply from a proposed 1-bedroom open-market dwelling). Therefore, the development is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS10 and Local Plan Part 2 Policies E5 and H7 (f) and there are not considered to be sufficient material considerations weighing in favour of overriding the level of harm caused to the heritage asset. |
| 4. | The submitted Bat Roost Assessment has found that the building includes evidence of being a home to bats and considers that it may still continue to be a roosting site. The Assessment also determined that the site has moderate potential for roosting bats, and recommends that further surveys are carried out to further determine the presence of bats within the building. These further surveys have not been forthcoming and therefore the Local Planning Authority is unable to determine whether the proposal would result in the loss or harm of a protected species or their habitat or whether migratory measures could take place. As such, insufficient information has been provided to determine the possible level of harm to protected species, ecology and biodiversity, and so the proposal is contrary to Policy CS11 from the Core Strategy and Local Plan Part 2 Policy H7 (e). |
| 5. | The application site is located within the Orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone but the application is not supported by a Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment, nor has the required £185.93 mitigation contribution payment been made, both of which are necessary for the purposes of satisfying the Council's Green Infrastructure Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (GIRAMS). As such the Local Planning Authority cannot fully assess the additional impact upon the designated sites within the Borough. 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. |
| 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 therefore contrary to policies H4, 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. |
