Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The loss of a section of wall to facilitate an access to the proposed development is contrary to s72 and s66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as the loss would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of that area. The loss of the wall would degrade the areas individuality and importance and adversely impact the setting of the listed building removing a historical aspect of the designated curtilage of the listed building. The wall, albeit repaired at points, is in itself a substantial structure which contributes positively to the character an value of the conservation area and the removal of a section would reduce its devalue the conservation area as a whole by reducing a highly visible structure of architectural interest. The demolition of a section of wall would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 at s66 and s72, the Core Strategy at policy CS10 and the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraphs 186, 190, 192, 193, 195 and 196.
2.The development as proposed would detract from the significant of the heritage asset and remove its viability in the public realm by the reduction in curtilage which is contrary to paragraph 200 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This impact is exacerbated by the loss of the wall which directly reduces an enhancement to the setting of the listed building. There are no public benefits to be found by the loss of the wall or the erection of the dwelling within this location that would outweigh the harm to the heritage asset and conservation area.
3.The listed building is currently set within a curtilage appropriate to reflect its stature and significance as a heritage asset within a conservation area. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act states that development should only enhance and not harm the settings of listed buildings and Conservation area's. The subdivision of the plot detracts from the grandeur of the building and erodes the perceivable history of the area and building. The green space was appropriate for a house the size of the heritage asset is integral to its setting and prominence. To subdivide the curtilage, even with a small dwelling is not beneficial to the building or area. The design of the building would be at odds with the character of the area and would produce a contrived layout without correct thought being given to the setting of the listed building. The requirement to clear a vast number of trees to accommodate the dwelling, driveway and garage would cause the urban area to infringe on the setting of the heritage asset to an unacceptable level and would remove a rare and irreplaceable green space from the urban environment. The clearing of the land and domestication by erection of dwelling and associated articles would be would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 at s66 and s72, the Core Strategy at policy CS10 CS11(m) and CS9 and the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraphs 186, 190, 192, 193, 195 and 196.
4.The trees within the site are protected by virtue of being in a conservation area and, while the application was ongoing, a tree preservation order was placed upon 24 elms and one sycamore on the site. The loss of the trees in this locations, as evidenced by the preservation order, would cause significant harm to the character and amenity of the area. The preservation order has found that the tree should be retained and should be afforded this specific protection and their removal has not been justified within the application.
5.With the exception of a brief mention of bird boxes there is no mention within the application of any biodiversity improvements or mitigation contrary to paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework and CS11 of the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy. For the reasons given above the development of a dwelling in this location would significantly adversely impact the character of the area, the value of the conservation area, the setting and importance of the listed building, the locally important green space and the loss of tree would demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing a single dwelling house.
6.The application is contrary to Local and National Planning Policy and legislation, specifically would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 at s66 and s72, the Core Strategy at policies CS9, CS10 and CS11 and the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraphs 170, 186, 190, 192, 193, 195,196 and 200.
7.STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT: In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above.