| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | By virtue of its private fenced off rear garden, separate access and separate cycle and refuse storage area, the proposed annex is not considered to offer an ancillary form of accommodation to the main dwelling. The annex fails to have a functional dependency on the donor dwelling and would be tantamount to creating an independent dwelling within the site, further evidenced by the fact that the accommodation would provide its own kitchen and living facilities along with a separate bedroom and bathroom. As such, the annex would be capable of providing independent accommodation separate to the main dwelling and therefore would fail to remain an ancillary use, or be subordinate in intensity of use, to the principal dwelling, as is required to be considered an annex. The proposal would therefore be considered to be contrary to policy H10 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021). |
| 2. | The lack of functional dependency on the donor dwelling and capability of providing independent accommodation would mean that occupiers of the annex would live in a cramped environment with a small rear garden. This would create an oppressive environment for future occupiers and would therefore not provide adequate levels of amenity. The application is contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9 and policy A1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021). |
| 3. | The conversion of the garage to an annex would remove parking opportunities on site and the lack of ancillary function of the annex as proposed would likely result in independent vehicle movements and an increase in parking pressures. As such, the proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and manoeuvring facilities to the standard required by the Local Planning Authority and reduces the existing parking provision for the donor dwelling. The proposal, if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in on-street parking and exacerbate existing pressures which would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS09 E and CS16. |
| 4. | The application site is located within the Green 2.5km+ Indicative Habitat Impact Zone but the application is not supported by an up-to-date shadow template HRA or the required £210.84 GIRAMS contribution, which are necessary for the purposes of satisfying the Council's duty to avoid impacts on internationally protected site through the use of the 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 without satisfaction that the required mitigation would be provided. Consequently, the application is contrary to Core Policy CS11 from the Core Strategy and Local Plan Part 2 Policies GSP5 and GSP8 which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development. |
| 5. | 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. |
