| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application site is located outside of the development limits defined by policy GSP1 and within 'countryside' as defined by policy CS2. The site is remote and distant to the nearest settlements, located over 1km from both the development limits of either Burgh Castle or Bradwell, moreover it is not linked to either settlement by footpath. The lack of footpaths, narrow lanes and 40mph speed limit create conditions hostile to pedestrians and therefore given this, and the remote location of the site, it is highly likely that visitors to the site would be near totally reliant on the private car. This inaccessible location by means other than the private car means that the proposal would also not provide a community facility in a sustainable location or one which reduces the need to travel, as expected by Core Policy CS15.
As such, the proposal is considered contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS1, CS2 and CS15 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy GSP1 as well as paragraph 8 of the NPPF (September 2023). |
| 2. | There is a line of 5 protected oak trees on the western boundary of the site (TPO No.11 of 2023) which contributes to the wooded boundary of the field to the highway. The proposed new access would require part of the existing hedgerow to be removed although the application is not supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment to evidence whether the new access, provision of splays or associated works to form the parking area and internal track, would require any works or result in any harm to the protected trees.
In the absence of such required information there has been insufficient evidence submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the protected oak trees. As such, the application is contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E4. |
| 3. | 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. |
