| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal will result in the loss of a C3 family dwelling in order to establish a mixed use development providing a D1 use at ground floor and C3 accommodation above. This scheme is therefore contrary to policy DC4 which seeks to preserve single dwelling floorspace. The more intensive use of this semi-detached house would cause noise disturbance to neighbouring properties both from the use of the property itself and from the comings and goings of the residents, staff and visitors on this relatively quiet residential street contrary to Policy DC55 (Noise) of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 2. | Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal, no evidence has been provided to support the need for a community facility in this location. The lack of accessibility also suggests an unsuitable development in this location. In light of the above, the proposed change of use is contrary to Policy DC26 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 3. | The proposed change of use would, by reason of its internal arrangement, result in an unsatisfactory relationship by way of noise and disturbance which would detrimentally impact upon the amenity and living conditions of future occupiers and result in a more intensive use of the premises than the existing single family dwelling contrary to Policies DC4, DC5 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | The submitted plans do not demonstrate a suitable and functional layout for the proposed use. It is therefore contrary to policies DC61 (Urban Design) and DC62 (Access) of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. |
| 5. | The level of parking provided is insufficient for a day-care facility of this size and in this location and is contrary to Policy DC5 (Specialist Accommodation) of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. The proposed change of use would, by reason of the inadequate on site car parking provision, is expected to result in unacceptable overspill onto the adjoining roads to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity, and is therefore contrary to Policies DC61, DC32 and DC33 of the Core Strategy. |
| 6. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: Consideration was given to seeking amendments, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to Brenda Wolton by email 26/9/2018. |
