| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed increase in scale and location of the dwelling on the plot would not have a significant adversely impact upon the Trinity Broads Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is part of the Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) by way of water course pollution and that the mitigation proposed would not address this issue. The Local Planning Authority therefore, considers the proposed development would result in an adverse harm on designated areas and watercourses due to the proposed drainage plans and would be contrary to Policies CS9(g) and CS11 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy (2015) which seeks to avoid any harmful impacts of development on its biodiversity, geodiversity, landscape assets and priority habitats and species. The proposal is also considered to be in conflict with aims of the National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 170-183 on Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. |
| 2. | The approved development (Application No. 06/18/0563/F) provides for a successful integration. The Local Planning Authority considers that this proposal would undermine the character and appearance of the street scene and result in an inharmonious form of development out of keeping with the existing street scene detracting from the character of the area therefore, would be contrary to Policies CS9 of Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy (2015) which seek to ensure good design and that new development is not detrimental to the character of an area and avoid any harmful impacts. It is not considered that the avoidance of a telecom line is sufficient justification for the adverse impacts identified as a result of the proposal. The proposal is also in conflict with the good design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework |
| 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. |
