| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application does not, in accordance with the response received from a statutory consultee, the Local Lead Flood Authority, meet the requirements of the sequential test and as such is contrary to paragraph 101 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy. The current layout allows for living accommodation on the ground floor with a depth of flooding up to 0.5m with potential rapid inundation which is not acceptable and does not demonstrate to the Local Planning Authority or the Lead Local Flood Authority that the development as proposed would be safe for its lifetime and has therefore not passed the exemption test and is contrary to paragraph 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS13 of the Core Strategy. |
| 2. | The site has been identified in the Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan as being within the Gorleston Critical Drainage Area and within Flood Zone 3 as identified with the Environment Agency's Flood Zone Map. The proposed residential development would introduce a more vulnerable use onto this brownfield site and it has not been demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that the site can be adequately drained nor is there sufficient information provided to demonstrate that sources of flooding, including surface water can be adequately dealt with and that the development of the site as proposed will not lead to an increased risk of flooding elsewhere. In addition there is insufficient information provided to show how the surface water drainage will be adopted or maintained in the future. The inadequate provision of information and the potential increase in risk of flooding elsewhere or of the proposed buildings is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy. |
| 3. | 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.
|
