| Conditions / Reason for Refusal: |
01
The Council considers that the proposal would result in inappropriate development that would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt in this location. The applicant has failed to demonstrate any very special circumstances to justify this inappropriate development and the harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt, and any other harm. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to ‘Saved’ UDP Policy HG4.9 Sites for Travelling People, Core Strategy Policy CS4 ‘Green Belt,’ and ‘Planning Policy for Travellers Sites’ along with the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
02
The application site is considered to be in an unsustainable location, being located a significant distance from day to day facilities such that future occupiers would be reliant on travel by car. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS3 ‘Location of New Development’, CS14 ‘Accessible Places and Managing Demand For Travel’ and CS33 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development’, ‘Planning Policy for Travellers Sites’ and guidance contained within the NPPF.
03
The site is located in close proximity to the A57 Chesterfield Road to the west and north, with a railway line to the south. No information has been submitted with the application to allow the assessment of the impact of these noise sources on the residential amenity of future occupiers of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS27 Community Health and Safety and UDP Policy ENV3.7 and guidance contained within the NPPF.
Informative
The decision has been based on the red edged plan received 21st April 2016 Plan Ref 16/02/01/003B
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The applicant did not enter into any pre application discussions with the Local Planning Authority. Discussions during the determination of the application have identified that it is not possible to support a scheme of this nature nor would any amendments make it acceptable. It was not considered to be in accordance with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and resulted in this refusal.
|
