| Conditions or Reasons for Planning Application - CB/22/02710/OUT |
| Conditions or Reasons: | | 1)
The proposed development is unacceptable in principle as it represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful and would cause harm to its openness due to its scale and position. The proposal would represent encroachment into the countryside, in conflict with one of the five purposes of the Green Belt. No material considerations have been identified that clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt and any other harm. Consequently 'very special circumstances' do not exist, and the development is contrary to the aims and objectives of Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SP4 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. |
| 2)
The proposed development, by nature of its location within the open countryside, would have a detrimental impact on the visual appearance and rural character of the locality due to a contrived form of development at odds with the grain of existing development, contrary to Policy SP7 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021). The proposed development would be within an unsustainable location. |
| 3)
The proposal, if permitted would result in an access which has inadequate driver / driver intervisibility and will lead to condition of danger to all highway users, contrary to Policy T2 of the CBLP (2021). |
| 4)
The proposal would result in unacceptable harm by virtue of extending residential built form into the traditional open field setting which is an important, and historically resonant, aspect of the Heath and Reach Conservation Area. It would represent an incongruous urbanising addition to be at odds with the character of the site and the surrounding. Accordingly, the proposed scheme fails to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the adjacent listed buildings, and is therefore contrary to Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The level of harm caused to the designated heritage asset by the proposal would be less than substantial (NPPF, paragraph 202 applies); however, there are no public benefits to outweigh this level of harm. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policy HE3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and section 16 of the NPPF. |
|
|---|