| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary to comply with the Nationally Described Space Standard issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 27th March 2015 as read with the notes dated 19th May 2016 which apply to it. The proposal does not meet the requirements of the notes, which direct that the minimum floor to ceiling height shall be 2.3m for at least 75% of the Gross Internal Area of the dwelling. The plans submitted with the proposal indicate that 38sqm of GIA will be provided at 1.7m height, with the overall height of the building equating to 2.25m height at the highest point. As such the proposal does not comply with Q.1(o) of Part 3, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). It is also necessary to demonstrate that the design or external appearance of the building is acceptable, however the proposal is not suitable for conversion due to it's low heights rendering the building to be unsuitable due to the inadequate internal amenity space, as such the proposal is not considered to accord with Q.2.(1)(f). |
| 2. | In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, the building must have suitable existing access to a public highway. The proposal site is accessed from Butt Lane via a private Loke with an unmade surface, which further narrows to a grassed track which is a difficult surface to drive on in a standard vehicle. The barn itself is then accessed over 30m across a field. The existing access is not considered suitable and significant improvements are considered to be required on and off site to create a suitable surface. The Applicant also does not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility at the site access with Butt Lane. The proposed development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety. As such the proposal is not considered to comply with Q.1(p) of Part 3, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), or Q.2.(1)(a) in relation to consideration of transport and highways impacts of the development. |
| 3. | In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, the curtilage may be no larger than the land occupied by that building. In this instance the land occupied by the building equates to 76sqm, whilst the curtilage constituting of the area of land immediately around the building, including the land to the front, excluding the building, measures approximately 119sqm. As such, the proposal is not considered to comply with the definition of curtilage as directed by Q.3.(1)(b). |
| 4. | In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary to demonstrate whether or not there would be any adverse impacts upon ecology. No Ecological Assessment has been submitted to assess the building the subject of this application. As a result, insufficient information has been provided and the proposal fails to comply with W.(10)(b) of Part 3, Class Q of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended). |
| 5. | The application site is located within the Orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by a shadow template Habitats Regulations Assessment nor the payment to provide the required £221.17 per dwelling 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, in terms of indirect and direct impacts upon the designated sites within the Borough without satisfaction that the required mitigation would be provided. As a result, the application is contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development. |
| 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. |
