Officer Report Continuation

• The site is zoned within an area of private woodland or parkland. - Additional the site is zoned within a conservation area. - In policy terms both the 9th of man SP & the Larege Lorain area proof are relevant. - Within the SP it was considered Environmental policy 35 e waste policy 1 are relevant. - Env policy 35 states: "The PC considered the scheme would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area, hence one the required for refusal. - Turning to waste policy 1 of one SP, the application fails in three respects. Firstly, the application fails to demonstrate that there is an acknowledged need. Secondly, the visually intrusion upon the amenity of the local residents. Thirdly, the external storage would have a detrimental impact upon the conservation area. Application No ... Page of ... - The area Plan Policy / CrB / PR 4 ~~which~~ deals with dev within Conservation areas, as stated previous the PC considered to process would have a detrimental impact. Fails with this policy ~~additionally~~ Env 22 should have consideration? - The PC also had concerns that the proposal would increase the potential incidents of illegal fly tipping within area, resulting to the detriment of the amenity of the area. Whilst within the statement it is the commissioners intention to erect a fence with a lockable plate, to possibly prevent unauthorized tipping by others, this is not indicated within this submission and is not certain. For these reasons the PC refused the application.