| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The holiday let is in current use and therefore cannot be classified as a redundant building meaning that Core Strategy policy CS03 C is not engaged. Moreover, the building is not of any historic or landscape importance meaning that Local Plan Part 2 policy H7 is also not engaged. As such, the conversion of the building, which sits outside of the development limits as defined by Local Plan Part 2 policy GSP1, is not supported in principle by policy. |
| 2. | 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. |
| 3. | The proposal would see the loss of an existing unit of holiday accommodation. Core Strategy policy CS08 B requires the safeguarding of holiday accommodation unless it can be demonstrated that the current use is not viable. The planning application is not supported by any such evidence and therefore it has not demonstrated that the loss of tourist accommodation justified, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS08 B. |
| 4. | The proposed dwelling would be a small, single storey property with a relatively small curtilage. The dwelling would fail to read as a stand alone dwelling due to its size and relationship with the donor dwelling. This would be in stark contrast to the prevailing surrounding character which is for large, two story properties set within generous curtilages. As such, the application is contrary to CS09 A and A2 A and B which requires developments to respect the surrounding built character and form. |
| 5. | The resulting impact of vehicle movements from an unconnected dwelling using the gravel private driveway would see increased levels of noise and disturbance to occupants of the donor dwelling due to the proximity of the driveway to the front elevation. This would be particularly noticeable at night-time when lights would shine into the windows on the front elevation and this would be harmful to their amenity and enjoyment of their dwelling. This is therefore contrary to Local Plan Part 2 policy A1 and Core Strategy policy CS09 F which both seek to protect neighbouring amenity. |
| 6. | In the absence of satisfactory details and bespoke ecological appropriate assessment of the risks of potential harm to the designated nationally and internationally-protected sites from increased nutrient loading and nitrification and the consequences of intensified use of the existing septic tank, 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. |
| 7. | 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). |
| 8. | 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. |
