| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, the location and siting of the building must be considered acceptable. The building is sited on an active poultry farm, where the occupants of the proposed dwellings would be subject to noise disturbances. The plans therefore include a 1.8m tall acoustic fence that would be installed parallel to the southern and eastern sides of the building. This would result in the proposed fence being installed 1m from the windows bedrooms serving units 1 and 3. The siting of the 1.8m tall proposed acoustic fencing would therefore result in the bedrooms with windows on the south elevation looking directly to the fencing, resulting in them suffering from unacceptable poor standard of outlook. The proposed fencing to the rear would similarly result in the main outlook from the living areas serving units 2 being the proposed fencing. The proposed 1.8m tall fencing would also reduce the amount of natural light reaching these rooms. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to accord with Q.2.(1)(e). |
| 2. | 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. The application has been supported by a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA), the survey for which was carried out during late autumn and early winter months. The NIA has not therefore provided a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the neighbouring farmyard during the summer months, when noise disturbances form animals are typically far more prevalent. The assessment carried out in the NIA includes reference to the use of the proposed acoustic fence to mitigate noise impacts and makes several assumptions in its assessment including that the windows and vents would remain closed. The proposed siting of the acoustic fence is not acceptable as it would result in the proposed dwellings having an unacceptably poor outlook. Requiring the windows and vents to remain closed during summer months would be likely to cause overheating for the residents of the development. The proposed noise protection measures and other forms of mitigation that have been submitted with the application are therefore not considered viable. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to accord with Q.2.(1)(b) and Q.2.(1)(e). |
| 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. |
