Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The applicant has not assessed whether there are any in combination or direct effects on the designated site that is within 400m of the application site. To fail to assess the impact of a development fails to ascertain whether the impact can be mitigated. In the absence of the assessment the application cannot be approved without failing in its duty with regards The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The application should be refused for failing to comply with the regulations in related to Natura 2000 sites.
2.There is no drainage strategy submitted in support of the application and this is required in order to make a complete assessment of the potential impact on the designated area by way of surface and foul water drainage. It is not demonstrated that there will not be an adverse impact by way of contamination through hydrological links to the designated area. An area of the site is within an area of surface water flooding which needs to be addressed.
3.The removal of this number of mature trees would have an adverse impact on the character of the area. The site is approximately 300 metres from the Broads Authority Executive Area, an area which is afforded the same status as a national park and the impact on the area should be considered. The removal of the trees and the erection of a cluster of dwellings would urbanise the area to the detriment of the setting of the Broads Authority Area. The loss of mature trees should also be resisted and is a reason for refusal.
4.There is no ecology assessment submitted in support of the application; given the proximity of the site to the Broads Authority area and open countryside it is likely that there are bats roosting and foraging within the area. An ecology assessment outlining the impact on protected species and biodiversity enhancements proposed is required to assess the application. It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision and as such the Local Planning Authority cannot adequately assess the application.
5.The unclassified road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the development proposed, by reason of its restricted width, lack of passing provision and restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety. Contrary to 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 3rd Local Transport Plan, entitled Connecting Norfolk.
7.The application is found to be contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and case law pertaining to this legislation, policy CS9 and CS11 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 8, 79, 170, 172, 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within The Planning System, read in conjunction with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.
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.