| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | Due to the proposed bungalow's awkward positioning, forced in between the donor dwelling and the road and being of a scale greater than the existing outbuildings, the bungalow would look alien and uncomfortable in the street scene - eroding the generally spacious character that Kings Loke enjoys. As such, the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS09 A and LPP2 policy A2 A which requires proposals to reflect or complement the existing urban grain. |
| 2. | Due to the cramped size of the plot, there is insufficient spacing around the dwelling - particularly to the rear and this over-development of the plot is contrary to LPP2 policy A2 C. This over-development manifests itself in the lack of outlook to both bedroom 3 and bedroom two. Both would have windows which look west and there would only be a 0.9 metre gap between the windows and the close boarded fence on the new boundary. For bedroom 2 there would be the 2 storey wall of the donor dwelling a further 0.9 metres the other side of the fence. Both bedrooms would not have enough outlook to provide satisfactory levels of amenity and due to the relationship with the donor dwelling, both would likely suffer from significant levels of overshadowing and a lack of natural daylight. This is contrary to LPP2 policy A1 and Core Strategy policy CS09 F. |
| 3. | Bedroom 3 is undersized and would only provide 6.3 sqm of floor area - which is further constrained by the door opening - this is below the 7.5 sqm size for a single bedroom outlined in the national guidance (Technical housing standards - nationally described space standard). This limited space would lead to an oppressive living environment for future occupants, contrary to LPP2 policy A1 and Core Strategy policy CS09 F. |
| 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 both 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, 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. | 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) of the adopted Local Plan Part 2. |
| 6. | 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. |
