Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.Paragraph 195 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm. Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy Policy CS10 seeks to conserve and enhance the significance of the Borough's heritage assets and their settings and Policy CS1 states that the Council will look favourably towards new development that will protect the landscape, built character and historic environment. Planning permission has previously been granted for a new dwelling on land to the north east of The Orangery, which is a grade II listed building, it is considered that the proposed erection of a further new dwelling to the south and the subsequent reduction in the curtilage of The Orangery and the space around the building would have a significant adverse effect on the setting of the listed building contrary to the aims of paragraph 195 of the NPPF and Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy.
2.In addition to the adverse effects on the setting of the listed building the application site is restricted in width and the erection of a dwelling would be an over-development of the plot resulting in a form of development that would be out of character with the surrounding area.
3.The site is outside but adjacent to the 'Village Development Limit' for Filby, in such areas development may be acceptable providing it satisfies the criteria of the Interim Housing Land Supply Policy (IHLSP). For the reasons given above the proposal does not comply with criteria (d) and (e) of the IHLSP and is therefore not an acceptable form of development in this location.
4.STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): 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.