| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal includes a new access road that will pass through the area of the former sewage treatment plant associated with the Second World War Heavy Anti-Aircraft battery site. The remains of the sewage treatment plant form part of the non-designated heritage asset which are of equivalent value to the heritage asset under footnote 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. The creation of hardstanding removes the ability to read the site and is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed access road would result in the removal of all three of the surviving above-ground Second World War structures in this area. The western part of the overall Second World War Heavy Anti-Aircraft battery site, which comprises the non-designated heritage asset, contributes to the understanding and significance of the designated heritage asset (scheduled monument). |
| 2. | The proposed building is still of such a scale, and in such proximity to, the designated heritage asset that it will have an adverse impact upon its setting. The proposed building will be approximately five times the height of the structures within the adjacent designated heritage asset and will have a footprint roughly twice that of the command post building. Paragraph 194 of the National planning Policy Framework 2019 requires that, "any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. No clear justification is given for the harm to the designated heritage asset that would occur through the loss of the adjacent non-designated structures associated with the former sewage treatment plant or, indeed, the impact of the new building upon its setting. |
| 3. | It had not been demonstrated that the potential for alternative uses with greater public-benefit have been fully explored with respect to paragraphs 192 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 2019. It is considered that, when weighed against the requirements of paragraphs 193 - 197 of National Planning Policy Framework 2019, there is still insufficient justification for the harm that will occur to both the designated and non-designated elements of the heritage asset at the proposed development site |
| 4. | The site is located immediately adjacent to the Broads Authority boundary, which surrounds it on three sides. The construction of a building of a very significant size and scale here will have an adverse impact on the appearance of the area, due to its intrinsic visibility with the landscape, and will consequently also have an adverse impact on the character of the area. The impact on the landscape will be exacerbated by the activities associates with the operation, with the stored raw materials and finished product representing an incongruous intrusion in this rural landscape, whilst the noise and dust resulting from the industrial processes will impact adversely on the rural character to the detriment of the tranquillity. The Broads is designated as of equivalent status to a National Park and its landscape is accorded the highest level of protection. The introduction of the development proposed adjacent to the Broads boundary (on three sides) would adversely affect the character and appearance of the landscape and the experiential qualities of it. |
| 5. | The application proposes the removal of 47 mature trees which will have an adverse impact on the character of the area with specific reference the impact on the Broads Authority Executive Area. In addition their removal would have a detrimental impact on the biodiversity of the area and is therefore contrary to policy CS11 of the Core Strategy. The noise mitigation measures includes an acoustic fence which is considered detrimental to the character of the area in relation to the scheduled monument and the Broads Authority Executive Area. |
| 6. | For the reasons referenced above the development cannot be considered a sustainable one and is contrary to paragraphs 8 and 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. The application is refused as the proposal is contrary to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy CS9, CS10, CS11, CS12 and CS14 an the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 Paragraphs 180, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 and 202. |
| 7. | 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. |
