| Condition Details / Information Notes |
| Drawing no/s:
KCC3740/04 – Location Plan
KC3740/05 – Location Plan to the Highway
KC3740/06 – Block Plan
KC3740/07 – Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans
KC3740/08 – Landscaping Plan
|
| The application site lies outside of a defined development boundary, and is therefore classed as being in the open countryside where development is strictly controlled in accordance with SWDP2. Policy SWDP2C sets out that new development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled and limited to the defined exceptions, including specific support by other development plan policies.
Policy SWDP 36 relates to static/touring caravans, chalets and camping sites, which outlines that development will be permitted where specific criteria are met.
In this instance, the proposal is found to conflict with criteria (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of Policy SWDP36. In particular, part of the site, specifically the proposed access, lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, which is contrary to criterion (i). In addition, the submitted scheme does not provide sufficient landscaping to effectively screen the development from public vantage points, including nearby public rights of way and local highways, resulting in a failure to comply with criteria (ii) and (iii). Furthermore, due to the design and layout of the proposal, which would extend the linear built form and result in encroachment into the open countryside to the south, the development would appear insensitive and visually incongruous in its setting, contrary to criterion (iv) of Policy SWDP36.
The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the provisions of SWDP36 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) and therefore the scheme is not considered to be acceptable in principle in this open countryside location as it fails to protect the open countryside in accordance with SWDP2 and the relevant aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposals have given appropriate regard to the character of the surrounding rural landscape, in the form of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment or similar justification within a supporting statement. As such, the proposals have failed to demonstrate how the scheme conserves, enhances or integrates effectively within its surroundings, as required by Policy SWDP25.
The proposals would introduce an incongruous form of development, that fails to reflect the predominant nucleated settlement pattern and the other primary characteristics of Land Cover Parcel VE35b within which the application site is located, resulting in harm to the open countryside. Consequently, the development also conflicts with Policy SWDP2, which seeks to safeguard and enhance the open countryside.
The scheme is therefore considered to be contrary to both SWDP25 and SWDP2, and the relevant aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| Part of the application site, specifically the site access is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with the remainder of the site being bound to the north and west entirely by Flood Zones 2 and 3.
The proposals fail to adequately address flood risk, with no site-specific Flood Risk Assessment, Sequential Test or Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan submitted to accompany the application. In the absence of these documents, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development is located in the lowest-risk area, would be safe for its lifetime, or would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Additionally, the lack of information relating to safe access, egress, finished floor levels and flood resilience further undermines the acceptability of the scheme.
Accordingly, the proposals are contrary to Paragraphs 172–177 and Footnote 63 of the NPPF, relevant sections of the Planning Practice Guidance, and Policies SWDP28 and SWDP29 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.
|
| Positive and Proactive Statement. In dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following ways:
- seeking further information following receipt of the application;
In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 of the NPPF. Despite these efforts, the Council still consider that planning permission should be refused for the reasons set out above. |