| Conditions / Reason for Refusal: |
01
The design and appearance of the proposed dwelling would lead to less than substantial harm to the Laughton-en-le-Morthen Conservation Area and as no public benefit has been demonstrated to outweigh this harm, it is considered that the proposals are contrary to Local Plan Policies CS23 ‘Valuing the Historic Environment’ and SP41 ‘Conservation Areas’ and advice contained in the NPPF.
02
Visibility at the access is severely restricted in both directions, such that the
driver of a vehicle leaving the access must emerge into the classified highway before an acceptable degree of visibility is available to the detriment of road
safety, contrary to paragraph 115 in the NPPF.
03
The proposed vehicular access to the site is considered to be unsuitable in
view of its restricted width to satisfactorily cater for additional vehicular traffic
to be generated by the new development, to the detriment of road safety.
04
The scheme fails to provide a scheme of comprehensive development of the wider area for this garden land and neighbouring sites contrary to Policy SP12 ‘Development of Residential Gardens.’
05
The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information in the form of an archaeological desk-based assessment specifically addressing the potential archaeological interest at the site. As such, the proposed dwelling is contrary to Local Plan Policies SP42 ‘Archaeology and Scheduled Ancient Monuments’ and SP43 ‘Conserving and Recording the Historic Environment’ as well as advice contained in the NPPF.
06
The applicant has failed to provide information that demonstrates no net loss of
biodiversity at the site before and after development has taken place. As such, the
proposal is contrary to the requirements of Local Plan Policy SP33 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment.’
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.
|
