| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The scale, form and massing of the proposed development is not appropriate to the local context and its rural setting, and the design is not of a sufficiently high standard to present a suitable form of development nor innovation in such a prominent and visible location. The use of alien materials, flat roof and fenestration proposed would cause the dwelling to be overly dominant in the street scene and out of character with the surrounding area and the local vernacular. The application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy H9, paragraphs 135 and 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and is contrary to Policy 5 of the emerging Belton with Browston, Burgh Castle and Fritton with St Olaves Neighbourhood Plan, and the application must therefore be refused in accordance with the expectations of Paragraph 139 of the NPPF (2024). |
| 2. | The prominence of the redeveloped dwelling would exacerbate the poor quality design of the proposed alterations and would have an adverse impact on the surrounding landscape character. The proposal would also have a significant detrimental impact on the setting and appreciation of the nationally protected landscape of the Broads Area, given the close proximity and lack of screening to the Broads Area, and the Halvergate Marshes Conservation Area (a designated heritage asset) to the north, due to the openness of the landscape to the north and the position of the site on high ground and high level of visibility of the site. This would be harmful to the setting of the Broads National Park and the designated heritage asset. Furthermore, the land around the site is identified within the emerging Belton with Browston, Burgh Castle and Fritton with St Olaves Neighbourhood Plan as a key view especially from a vantage point adjacent the application site to the west, and this proposal is considered to be in the setting of that view point and be visibly appreciable from and as part of the key view location.
The proposal would therefore be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS10 and CS11, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies E4 and E5, emerging Belton with Browston, Burgh Castle and Fritton with St Olaves Neighbourhood Plan Policy 8, and NPPF (2024) Paragraphs 189, 212 and 213. The proposal offers very little short term economic benefit and no longer term social or economic impacts that would weigh in favour of the development and address the high levels of less than substantial harm to heritage assets and the detrimental impacts on the wider environment and landscape value, and the application must therefore be refused in accordance with the expectations of Paragraph 215 of the NPPF (2024). |
| 3. | The proposal includes an excessive level of external lighting which has not been justified. This, in addition to the extent of glazing proposed in the design of the redevelopment, would mean that the proposal would lead to light spill which could lead to conditions of increased sky-glow. The level of lighting would also make the dwelling highly visible during hours of darkness, highlighting the inappropriate design which would be visible across a wide area at night. This would be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies E4 and E6, emerging Belton with Browston, Burgh Castle and Fritton with St Olaves Neighbourhood Plan Policy 9 and NPPF (2024) Paragraph 189. |
| 4. | The site has potential to provide habitat conducive to bats and other species within the building's roof space and within possible bat feeding corridors in the vicinity of the site. The application does not include any information to establish the existing ecological baseline conditions at the site or demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on ecology, in particular that of protected species, and the application has not included any mitigation proposed or notable biodiversity or ecological enhancement measures. As such, the proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11. |
| 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. |
