| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application site is located outside the development limits, and use of the land for siting of storage containers for personal or domestic storage is contrary to policy because it comprises a use which is unrelated to agricultural or forestry development. The proposal does not fall into one of the exemptions allowed by Policy GSP1 and constitutes an unacceptable form of development within the open countryside. The applicant has not demonstrated in the application, or through personal circumstances and application of the Public Sector Equality Duty, why the development should be considered acceptable contrary to the adopted development plan, and the applicant has not justified why the use cannot take place in a more appropriate location.
The application is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS2 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy GSP1. |
| 2. | The storage containers are temporary in appearance and are not sited to mitigate their impact on the surrounding landscape, and as a result have an urbanising impact on the rural area. The proposal represents a development which is out of keeping with the surrounding landscape and which is out of character with the surrounding rural countryside. The application is not supported by any information to demonstrate that any screening would be provided or could be provided to suitable effect in a timely fashion by planning condition or obligation.
The application is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS9 and CS11, adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E4, Paragraphs 135 (c) and 187 of the NPPF (December 2024) and is contrary to the aims of Emerging Local Plan Policies DHE1, NAT7 and NAT10. |
| 3. | Notwithstanding that the application does not clearly define the extent of the area or which parts of the application site would be covered by hardcore, the proposed installation of the hardcore would have an urbanising impact on the landscape, which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
The application is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS9 and CS11, adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E4, Paragraphs 135 (c) and 187 of the NPPF (December 2024) and is contrary to the aims of Emerging Local Plan Policies DHE1, NAT7 and NAT10. |
| 4. | The application site lies within Flood Zone 3 where a site-specific flood risk assessment (FRA) should be provided for all development. However, the applicant has not provided either a flood risk assessment which is required by policy CS13 nor a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan that is required by policy E1. As such there is a lack of information supporting the application to demonstrate whether the use of the land, and the siting of the storage containers, would be safe in terms of the actual flood risk, or what measures could be provided to make use of the land safe. Moreover, no evidence has been provided to show that the containers are, or could be, securely anchored to the ground which is most likely necessary to prevent them floating off-site in the event of a flood, which could impact people and property off-site and be detrimental to public safety.
Additionally, as the site is located within Flood Zone 3b, development should be limited to either 'water compatible' development or essential infrastructure only. Although it is considered that use of the land as private amenity space or a leisure plot would present the same risk level as the site's existing use, and not require a sequential test, the development includes siting of storage containers on the land which would not fit within either of these exemptions, and is therefore not acceptable in principle and would not be considered sequentially-appropriate in flood risk terms.
The application is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS13, adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E1, Paragraphs 170 and 181 of the NPPF (December 2024) and is contrary to the aims of Emerging Local Plan Policy CLC2. |
| 5. | The application comprises a poor quality of detail and is not supported by plans which are accurate, detailed nor are they to scale. This means that it is not possible to make a full assessment of the application or be confident that any development would be undertaken in accordance with the details proposed. |
| 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. |
