Great Yarmouth Borough Council

No.	Condition Text
1.	The proposed flats are considered contrary to the aims of paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that development should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The proposed flats are considered undersized resulting in a layout which considered cramped and does not offer an acceptable level of amenity. As studio flats the addition of a kitchen into a small area will further result in the loss of space and degrade the standard of environment. The requirement for a good level of amenity is further supported by policy CS9 (criterion F) of the adopted Core Strategy. The layout of the flats creates an overly intense use which could impact upon the neighbouring properties and wider holiday area. The inclusion of eight small flats in a confined space will form an unacceptable environment that will adversely affect the surrounding amenities through noise and disturbance. This is contrary to policy TR12 both criterion A and B. Although no external changes are proposed the application has the potential to adversely affect the character of the conservation area as bin storage has not been shown. The application site includes limited external spaces for locating bins and storing bins on the frontage could adversely affect the visual amenities of the area. An adverse visual impact upon a conservation area would be contrary to policy CS10 (criterion A). Consequently the proposed development is considered contrary to the aims of paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS9 and CS10 of the adopted Core Strategy
2.	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.

No.

Condition Text

The proposed flats are considered contrary to the aims of paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that development should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The proposed flats are considered undersized resulting in a layout which considered cramped and does not offer an acceptable level of amenity. As studio flats the addition of a kitchen into a small area will further result in the loss of space and degrade the standard of environment. The requirement for a good level of amenity is further supported by policy CS9 (criterion F) of the adopted Core Strategy. The layout of the flats creates an overly intense use which could impact upon the neighbouring properties and wider holiday area. The inclusion of eight small flats in a confined space will form an unacceptable environment that will adversely affect the surrounding amenities through noise and disturbance. This is contrary to policy TR12 both criterion A and B. Although no external changes are proposed the application has the potential to adversely affect the character of the conservation area as bin storage has not been shown. The application site includes limited external spaces for locating bins and storing bins on the frontage could adversely affect the visual amenities of the area. An adverse visual impact upon a conservation area would be contrary to policy CS10 (criterion A). Consequently the proposed development is considered contrary to the aims of paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS9 and CS10 of the adopted Core Strategy

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.