| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application site is outside any area defined in the Local Plan: Core Strategy where residential development might be permitted. Outside these defined areas, saved Policy HOU10 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan only permits the erection of new dwellings if they are required in connection with either agriculture, forestry, organised recreation or the expansion of an existing institution. In such cases it must be demonstrated that the new dwelling is essential in the interests of agriculture or good management and the proposal must have the unequivocal support of a suitably qualified independent appraisor.
No evidence has been put forward in support of the application that will satisfy the requirements of the policy and national planning policy guidance, the objective of which is to prevent unjustified development in the countryside. The proposed erection of a dwelling on this site is therefore contrary to saved Policy HOU10 of the Borough-Wide Local Plan.
|
| 2. | Policy CS1 of the Local Plan: Core Strategy states that the Council will look favourably towards new development that succesfully contributes to sustainable growth, criterion a) seeks to ensure that new development is of a scale and location that complements the character and supports the function of individual settlements, criterion e) of the Policy states that new development should provide safe accessible places that promote healthy lifestyles and provide easy access for all to jobs, shops and community facilities by walking, cycling and public transport. Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy states that growth within the Borough must be delivered in a sustainable manner by balancing the delivery of new homes with new jobs and service provision creating resilient self-contained communities and reducing the need to travel.
The site is served by an umade road and is remote from jobs and services, it is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to the aims of Policies CS1 and CS2 in that it would be an unsustainable form of development that would not would provide easy access to jobs, shops and community facilities. |
| 3. | As far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the applicant does not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility at the site access with Butt Lane. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy in that it would be detrimental to highway safety. In addition to this the site is served by an unmade road that is also a public footpath and the additional traffic associated with building work is likely to have a detrimental effect on the road surface. |
| 4. | The application site is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3, Paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, Paragraph 101 of the NPPF states that development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The proposal fails the Sequential Test for flooding as there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development within the development limits and with a lower risk of flooding. The proposal is therefore contrary to flooding guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 5. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): 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.
|
