| Conditions or Reasons: | | 1)
The proposed development would result in the loss of an active office use within the town centre boundary of Dunstable. In the absence of adequate justification of the loss of the active employment use in this location, the proposed change of use from office to residential would negatively impact the vitality, viability and employment opportunities in a sustainable town centre location. Therefore, the principle of development is unacceptable, and the proposal would be contrary to Policies R1 and EMP2 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. |
| 2)
The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive scale, mass, bulk and height would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Conservation Area. The limited public benefits which include the addition of marking housing would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the historic setting. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policy HE3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, as well as Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). |
| 3)
The proposed development would result in the loss of a protected tree to the rear of the site. Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with Policy EE4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. |
| 4)
The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive scale, mass, bulk and height would result in an unacceptable loss of outlook and overbearing impact upon Nos. 1-3 Montpellier Mews, and the flats above No. 63 High Street South. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. |
| 5)
The proposed development would fail to provide an adequate and acceptable provision of amenity and standard of living for the future occupier of the proposed development. A number of habitable windows would be subject to an overbearing impact as a result of the four storey development, as well as failing to satisfy the National Space Standards. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. |
| 6)
The application site lies within the Zone of Influence of the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The proposed development would fail to provide adequate mitigation to the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC, and therefore the proposal would harm the integrity of the SAC and conflict with paragraphs 180 and 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). |
| 7)
In the absence of a completed legal agreement securing financial contributions to offset infrastructure impact, including education, recreation and the provision of affordable housing, the development would have an unmitigated and unacceptable impact on existing local infrastructure. The development would therefore not amount to sustainable development and would be contrary to Policies H4 and HQ2 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) |
| 8)
The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development would not result in increased flooding to the high street which is an area at high risk of surface water flooding, nor would it result in flooding which would impact infrastructure or neighbouring residential properties. Therefore, the proposed development fails to comply with Policy CC5 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, as well as paragraph 167 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 9)
The proposed development would fail to deliver a net gain in biodiversity by virtue of the loss of a protected tree which no proposed mitigation, replanting or landscaping. The proposal also fails to provide the relevant ecological surveys to ensure that there are no protected species within the roofspace of the existing building. As such, the proposed development fails to comply with Policy EE2 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan as well as paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 10)
The proposal fails to outline how the development would seek to tackle climate change, thereby failing to meet the requirements of Policy CC1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. In the absence of this evidence, the development would conflict with the identified policy. |
|
|---|