Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The proposed change of use from A1 (retail) to A2 (Financial and Professional Services) is considered by the Local Planning Authority to be contrary to criterion B & C of Policy SHP4 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Borough Wide Local Plan in that it would result in the concentration of non-retail uses in the primary shopping frontage in the defined town centre area which would detract from the vitality and viability of the frontage and undermine the retail function of the frontage.
2.The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal is contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework of delivering a sustainable economy and town centre - in particular the contents of Chapter 2:Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres - which states that it is necessary to recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality and promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer which reflect the individuality of town centres.
3.It is considered by the Local Planning Authority - which has given due weight to the views of the Town Centre Partnership and other town centre retailers - that the proposed change of use would lead to the loss of this prominently placed retail unit which because of its scale, size and location would have a significant and adverse impact on the town centre by virtue of the reduction of available retail floor-space in this pivotal location within the town centre which is likely to reduce the attractiveness and offer available particularly when the cumulative effect of the A2 uses within the immediate vicinity of the application site is taken into consideration.
4.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 development and has been refused for the reasons set out above.