| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, the noise impacts of the development and the location and siting of the building must be considered acceptable. The building is located on an active poultry farm, where the occupants of the proposed dwellings would likely be subject to noise, odours and disturbance which are outside of their control. It is considered that the proposal would only be acceptable if it was limited by an agricultural worker occupancy condition. However the application has not been proposed as such and it would be unlikely that 3no workers would require accommodation on site for this scale of agricultural holding. Moreover, the details of noise protection measures and other forms of mitigation that have been submitted with the application are considered insufficient in this regard. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to accord with Q.2.(1)(b) and Q.2.(1)(e). |
| 2. | In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, the curtilage must be no larger than the land occupied by that building. There are some discrepancies with the measurements included on the plans and it appears that the proposed "patio areas" for two of the dwellings are external and immediately beside the building should be included within the measurement for the curtilage rather than the building. As such, the curtilage would be 325sqm, and the building 287sqm, thus the curtilage would exceed the footprint of the dwelling and what is allowed under the definition of curtilage within Class Q. As such, the proposal is not considered to comply with the definition of curtilage as directed by Q.3.(1)(b). |
| 3. | 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 which is 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) and to fully assess the impacts of the proposal on designated ecological sites through recreational pressures, hydrological links or air quality, and to conclude the correct form of mitigation to offset any impacts. Without a HRA, the Local Planning Authority cannot fully assess the additional impact, in terms of indirect and direct impacts upon the designated sites within the Borough or confirm that the mitigation provided is adequate. 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. |
| 4. | 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. |
