| Conditions / Reason for Refusal: |
1.
The proposed development is unacceptable as it would result in the unjustified loss of identified amenity Green Space, contrary to Policies SP32 ‘Green Infrastructure and Landscape’, SP33 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment’ and SP38 ‘Protecting Green Space’; the site forms part of an established area of green infrastructure, identified within the Green Space Audit (site reference AS61) as amenity green space of high value, contributing to the character of the area and, until recently, providing recreational benefits and part of a wider green network, and in the absence of a robust and evidence-based assessment demonstrating that the site is surplus to requirements, together with a lack of mitigation, compensation or replacement provision of equivalent or better quality, the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of valuable green space, failing to protect and enhance green infrastructure and biodiversity, and would be detrimental to the existing and future needs of the local community.
2.
The temporary siting of caravans for Gypsy and Traveller occupation is unacceptable due to the absence of sufficient information to enable a proper assessment against Policy SP13 and Core Strategy Policy CS3; the application fails to specify the number, siting, layout and purpose of the caravan accommodation and associated structures and vehicles, or the duration of the proposed temporary use, and consequently the Local Planning Authority is unable to assess the impact on local amenity, infrastructure, highway safety, site capacity, or the relationship with the surrounding area, and as such the proposal cannot be supported as it does not demonstrate compliance with the relevant criteria for Gypsy and Traveller sites.
3.
The proposed development is unacceptable as its layout represents a poor design solution which fails to create a coherent and high-quality residential environment, contrary to Policy CS28 ‘Sustainable Design’, Policy SP55 ‘Design Principles’ and the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide; the siting of the dwelling results in the partial loss of a garage court, leaving a number of existing garages landlocked between the application site and adjacent rear gardens, thereby creating an inaccessible and poorly defined residual area likely to fall into disuse and detract from the character and functionality of the locality. The overall layout raises concerns that the development would appear piecemeal, lacking effective landscaping and dominated by hardstanding, further exacerbated by potential conflicts with existing drainage infrastructure, and as such the proposal fails to demonstrate that it would deliver a well-designed, functional and visually attractive form of development.
4.
The proposed development is unacceptable as it fails to adequately identify and safeguard existing public sewer infrastructure within the site, with the submitted layout indicating tree planting and landscaping located over or in close proximity to a public sewer, thereby potentially restricting access for maintenance and risking damage to the network; in the absence of precise sewer location details and appropriate stand-off distances, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal would protect essential infrastructure.
5.
The proposed development is unacceptable as it has resulted in the removal of existing vegetation across the site, leading to a significant loss of biodiversity value, and in the absence of any submitted ecological assessment or adequate mitigation and compensation measures, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal would achieve no net loss or provide enhancements to biodiversity, as required by Policy SP33 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment’; furthermore, the limited landscaping information submitted, together with constraints arising from the presence of a public sewer, raises further doubt as to whether meaningful replacement planting or habitat creation can be achieved on site, and as such the development fails to demonstrate compliance with local policy requirements to protect, mitigate and enhance biodiversity.
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.
|
