Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...

2.17.3 It is considered that due to the positioning of the dwelling in relation to other
residential properties and the orientation of the windows on the proposed dwelling
that the proposed layout would not have a significant impact on neighbouring
properties through overlooking, overshadowing or creating an oppressive outlook.
2.17.4 There are no windows in the east elevation facing toward the neighbouring
property of 11 Back Lane. It is considered prudent to attach a condition to any
consent granted that no other openings are created on the east side elevations
above to prevent any future overlooking issues.
2.17.5 The proposed development is therefore considered not to cause a significant
detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties in
accordance with policies ENV1 (1) and H7(2) of the Local Plan and the NPPF.
2.18 Impact on Nature Conservation and Protected Species
2.18.1 Policies. H7(5) and ENV1(5) states that proposals should not harm acknowledged
nature conservation interests, or result in the loss of open space of recreation or
amenity value, or which is intrinsically important to the character of the area. These
policies should be given some weight as they are consistent with the NPPF.
2.18.2 The site is not a protected site for nature conservation or is known to support, or be
in close proximity to any site supporting protected species or any other species of
conservation interest. As such it is considered that the proposed would not harm
any acknowledged nature conservation interests and therefore would not be
contrary to Policies H7(5) and ENV1 (5) of the Selby District Local Plan and the
advice contained within the NPPF.
2.19 Assessment of Harm from the Proposed Development
2.19.1 The proposed scheme is considered to be appropriate development within the
Green Belt and there is no other harms arise by virtue of the proposed development
to the Green Belt.
2.20 Case for Very Special Circumstances
2.20.1 The NPPF differs from the guidance in PPG2 (now replaced by the NPPF) in that
the requirement for the applicant to provide a case to show what very special
circumstances exist is not included. The proposed scheme is considered to be
appropriate development within the Green Belt and therefore the requirement to
demonstrate very special circumstances is not required
2.21 Conclusion
2.21.1 The development of this site for the erection of one dwelling would be considered
acceptable in principle, despite the proposals not being in accordance with Policy
H2A, limited weight should be attached to the non compliance with Policy H2A and
significant weight should be attached to the site being identified as a designated
service village capable of accommodating additional small scale development and
the proposals not causing harm to the local area in accordance with the NPPF.
324