| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application site is located within flood zone 3 and is classed as a more vulnerable development. The application fails the sequential test as there is inadequate information supplied to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites for the development proposed. The application does not pass the exemption test as there are no wider sustainability benefits of the development that outweigh the flood risk, there are no community or sustainability benefits put forward and there is no topographic survey submitted with the application. The submitted FRA does not comply with national requirements and does not therefore provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. Specifically the following are not provided or inadequately provided:
i) No GPS verified topographic survey of the site has been submitted.
ii) Fluvial climate change allowances over the lifetime of the development have not been considered.
iii) It is not demonstrated that finished floor levels can be set to correct standards.
iv) The flood depths on site and within the building are not correctly calculated to determine potential flood depths for both fluvial and tidal flood risk.
v) There is no compensatory flood storage proposed.
vi) The depth of flooding and hazard on the access and egress route has not been considered.
For these reasons the application is refused as it fails to comply with policy CS13 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework with specific reference a paragraphs 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 and 163 . |
| 2. | Any development in this location would have a detrimental urbanising effect on the existing rural settlement and the adjacent Broads Authority area to the south. The existing green frontage to Main Road offers an interruption to a more continuous ribbon of development along Main Road, the loss of the existing hedgerow would be detrimental to the character of the settlement and adversely impact on the Broads Authority area. To allow the development would be contrary to paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 3. | There is inadequate information submitted to assess the impact of the proposed development on any habitat and species on the site and the site role in the wider ecological context. The site is within 500 metres of an internationally designated site and there is not sufficient information submitted to allow an adequate assessment of the impact that the development would have, directly or in combination with other developments, on designated sites. In the absence of sufficient information the Appropriate Assessment, which is deemed required by the Council as the Competent Authority, cannot be carried out and as such the application cannot be approved. |
| 4. | The application site is not a sustainable location however the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not applicable in any case in this instance as the Appropriate Assessment is required and therefore paragraph 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework is applied. |
| 5. | The proposed development would lead to the creation of an access on a stretch of classified highway where the principal function is that of carrying traffic freely and safely between centres of population. The vehicular movements associated with the use of the access would lead to conflict and interference with the passage of through vehicles to the detriment of that principle function and introduce a further point of possible traffic conflict, being detrimental to highway safety. Contrary to the Core Strategy Policy CS16. |
| 6. | The proposal is remote from local service centre provision conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the reliance on the private car as represented in national and local policy. Contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 5 of Norfolk's 3rd Local Transport Plan, entitled Connecting Norfolk. |
| 7. | For the reasons stated above the application is refused as it is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy and the Habitats Regulations 2017. |
| 8. | 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. |
