| Conditions / Reason for Refusal: |
01
The proposed development represents an over-development of this site and results in a cramped form of development and inadequate level of accommodation for future occupiers. In addition, it would have a poor relationship with adjacent properties and the surrounding area in general, failing to take the opportunities available for improving the character of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict Local Plan Policies CS28 ‘Sustainable Design’, and SP55 ‘Design Principles’ of the adopted Rotherham Local Plan and the general design guidance in the NPPF.
02
The scheme if implemented would result in inadequate on-site car parking / servicing for the adjacent public house and would result in the obstruction of the public highway compromising its safe operation.
03
The proposed development would cause a loss of amenity for existing and future occupiers on the grounds of noise and general disturbance, contrary to Policy SP52 ‘Pollution Control’ and the NPPF.
04
No details with regard to biodiversity have been submitted and as such the proposal would not be in compliance with the aims of Local Plan policies CS20 ‘Biodiversity and Geodiversity’ and SP33 ‘Conserving the Natural Environment’ and the NPPF
05
The proposed development will be sited over the public sewerage system located within the site. This could seriously jeopardise the Local Water Authority’s ability to maintain the public sewerage network and as such is not acceptable.
Informative
This refusal refers to submitted plans 100,101,102,103,104,105 Received 19 May 2023.
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The applicant did not enter into any pre application discussions with the Local Planning Authority. Consideration of the scheme during the determination of the application have identified that it is not possible to support a scheme of this nature and the proposed amendments differ too much to be accepted as a variation of this application. It was not considered to be in accordance with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and resulted in this refusal.
|
