| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed dwelling by virtue of its close proximity to the boundary with the rear elevation and garden area of Tudor Lodge, is considered to be an unneighbourly form of development which would result in an overly dominant relationship between the proposed dwelling and that property. The 1m separation between the proposed dwelling and the boundary with Tudor Lodge and the 7m separation distance to the rear elevation of that property would result in the proposal causing a loss of outlook and the perception of the new development enclosing that dwelling which would constitute an over-dominant form of development resulting in harm to the amenities of the occupiers of Tudor Lodge. This unacceptable impact is considered to be contrary to criteria A & E of saved policy HOU7 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan and criteria F of policy CS9 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy. |
| 2. | The location of the plot and its restricted frontage to Jews Lane would result in a development that would be incongruous in the street scene and out of character with the surrounding area, the constrained plot size and proximity to the neighbouring dwellings does not reflect the character of the area and is likely to result in harm to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining dwellings. Furthermore, due to the limited outlook from the windows on the eastern elevation, it is not considered that the dwelling would provide high levels of amenity to future occupiers. This unacceptable impact on both the character of the area and the amenity of both neighbours and future occupants of the dwelling, is considered to be contrary to criteria A & E of saved policy HOU7 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan and criteria A & F of policy CS9 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy. |
| 3. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): 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. |
