| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the design concerns stated in the refusal of application 06/08/0646/F have not been sufficiently addressed. The overall circulation of the lviing space appears awkward and there is no direct access into the garage from the properties, which would lead to difficult and unacceptable conditions for future occupiers. It is also considered that the proposed design is not commensurate with properties in the immediate area as there are no balconies or similar features in the immediate area and the properties, if allowed, would constitute an incoungruous feature within the surrounding area, which is characterised by a mix of late 19th/early 20th Century two-storey terraced dwellings and commercial workshops.
In addition to the above it is considered that by virtue of the provision of garage doors adjacent to the pavement on Exmouth Road Back and the consequent lack of visibility generated by these doors it may result in conditions that are hazardous to the safety of all highway users.
Given the above it is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Great Yarmouth Borough Wide Local Plan and in particular, policies HOU15, BNV16 and BNV18. |
| 2. | The site has been identified by the Environment Agency as being in Flood Zone 3 and therefore Planning Policy Statement 25 requires those proposing development are responsible for providing a Flood Risk Assessment to assess the risks of all forms of flooding to and from the development taking climate change into account. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment has demonstrated that safe, unaided access/egress from the development will be unavailable to occupants and visitors during the 1 in 200 year flood event including climate change, therefore the safety requirements for a new development of this nature within Flood Zone 3 have not been met. |
| 3. | Notwithstanding the above it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there are no other sites reasonably available which have a lesser flood risk on which the development could proceed instead. Paragraph D5 of PPS25 requires new development to be steered towards areas at the lowest probability of flooding.It is considered that other sites within the district, within Flood Zone 1, as identified by the Environment Agency, allocated for residential purposes would be more appropriate for this form of development and therefore this proposal fails to meet the sequential test in the above mentioned PPS. |
