| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The replacement of the existing boundary wall with a close boarded fence would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene which is harmful to visual amenity by disrupting the existing openness and would not be in keeping with the surrounding character of the area. Such a boundary treatment would diminish the relationship between the dwelling and the road, reducing levels of visual activity and further harming the street scene contrary to Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS09 and Local Plan Part 2 Policies A1 and H9. |
| 2. | The erection of the fence along the southern boundary of the site will enclose the western side of the passage way known as Teasdels Buildings. This will restrict views from within Teasdels Buildings out towards Bells Marsh Road, as well as restricting views from Bells Marsh Road into Teasdels Buildings . This enclosure will create an increased level of fear of crime and reduce the feeling of safety, contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS09, CS16 and Local Plan Part 2 Policies A1 and H9. |
| 3. | The replacement of the existing boundary wall with a 1.8m high close boarded fence would be detrimental to the amenity of Bells Marsh Garage and the residential dwelling located above by creating a loss of light and overshadowing. The fence would also be dominant and overbearing when viewed from within these properties and is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS09 and Local Plan Part 2 Policy A1. |
| 4. | As noted by the Highway Authority, the 1.8m fencing is proposed to be installed across the visibility splay of the garage, which presents a hazard for pedestrians who are unlikely to be able to see a vehicle leaving the garage. This is not considered an acceptable solution in terms of pedestrian safety and neighbouring amenity as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to the requirements of Core Strategy policies CS9(d) and CS16(a) and (c) and Local Plan Part 2 policy A1. |
| 5. | The proposed development conflicts with a number of policies of the adopted Local Plan and guidance of the associated Supplementary Planning Document, and the application has not included development which provides any wider public benefits of sufficient weight to outweigh those conflicts. The Local Planning Authority has not found any reasons or other material considerations to suggest that the application should not be determined in accordance with the up-to-date adopted development plan as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and as such the application should be refused. |
| 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. |
