| Conditions or Reasons: | | 1)
The proposed development, by virtue of encroaching residential form into an open countryside setting, would result in an abrupt and harmful transition between the village of Pulloxhill and the surrounding countryside. The urbanisation of this site would therefore fail to appropriately relate to its setting, and would not respect local context. Accordingly, and given the proposal would be located outside of the adjacent settlement envelope, the development is contrary to Policy DM4 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North, November 2009, and Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), February 2009. |
| 2)
By reason of the proposed development site being adjacent to a commercial enterprise (Events and Tents), information in relation to noise from this neighbouring use is required but has not been provided, and therefore it is unknown if the reasonable residential amenities of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be harmed by noise. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), February 2019. |
| 3)
By reason of the lack of an archaeological Heritage Statement, comprising the results of an archaeological trial trench evaluation, the level of impact the proposal would have on any surviving archaeological remains present at the site cannot be assessed. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), February 2019, and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, March 2014. |
| 4)
The proposed development would result in the intensification of use of a substandard access which makes no provision for adequate driver/driver intervisibility. The proposal would therefore result in conditions of danger and inconvenience to users of the highway and the property, and is contrary to Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), February 2019. |
| 5)
The proposed development would result in a substandard internal layout and access which does not comply to the current design guide and would result in unusable parking provision and vehicles reversing from the site along a single width access with no pedestrian refuge, and would lead to conditions of conflict and obstruction of the free flow of traffic on the highway and within the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), February 2019. |
6)
The proposal fails to provide adequate information on the entry/exit of service/delivery/emergency sized vehicles at the junction with the public highway with the on street parking opposite the junction, or means of
mitigation to provide available entry/exit for the service/delivery/emergency sized vehicles, to enable an accurate assessment of the junction in terms of functioning. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), February 2019. |
|
|---|