Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The proposed plans (drawing ref. 002) submitted as part of this application are ambiguous and it is not possible to be sure of the proposed layout or whether physical works are proposed relating to the existing stairwell at the rear yard. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this decision the proposed development is interpreted to be Flat 1 at basement level, Flat 2 at ground floor, Flat 3 at first floor, and Flat 4 at first and second floor.
2.The site is within Flood Zone 2 and would not provide a safe form of accommodation within a flood event, of particular concern is the safety of potential occupiers of flats 1 and 2. The Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that in a 1:200 plus Climate Change flood event the first floor would flood by 0.715 metres, whilst during a 1:1000 plus Climate Change event resulting in flooding of 1.205 m above floor level - both events would result in the basement being completely submerged. As such, accommodation would be at greater risk of flooding in comparison with the previous use of the property, where conventionally sleeping accommodation would have been confined to the first floor - being less vulnerable to flood risk impacts. In a flood risk event, the development would create a potential danger for loss of life - with there being similar concerns to the presence of sleeping accommodation on the ground floor. As such, the proposal would not comply with policy CS13 which requires that development is directed away from areas at the greatest risk of flooding and NPPF paragraph 167 d) which requires that development located in a Flood Zone that will be at risk must be able to be safely managed.
3.The site is located within Flood Zone 2 and therefore at high risk of flooding. No sequential test has been submitted as part of the application to identify and discount alternative sites for the development. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies CS13 and E1, and contrary to the approach of NPPF Paragraph 162.
4.The full width dormer to the rear will have harmful impact on the appearance of the terrace and therefore on the significance of the Conservation area. This would negatively impact the unified roof configuration and the architectural rhythm of the rear elevation. The harm caused by the loss of uniformity and the resulting impact on the appearance of the terrace and significance of the conservation area would be contrary to policies E5, CS09 A and CS10 which seek to protect the Borough's heritage assets, and it is not considered that sufficient public benefits are available to outweigh the harms caused.
5.Flat 3 would provide a cramped form of accommodation which would be of insufficient size to provide adequate levels of amenity to future occupants, and is afforded extremely limited opportunities for outlook and daylight to the living areas. This is contrary to policies A1 and CS09 F which seeks to provide a suitable standard of amenity of future residents.
6.The bedrooms to Flat 2 on the ground floor are arranged having windows facing into a communal yard. The private bedrooms are therefore compromised in terms of privacy and amenity as the area shown as a storage area is a communal area where other residents and visitors might congregate at any time causing disturbance and potential overlooking, causing an oppressive environment. This is contrary to policies A1 and CS09 F which seeks to provide a suitable standard of amenity of future residents.
7.Notwithstanding the flood risk safety concerns associated with the proposed creation of Flat 1 within the basement, the basement location affords inadequate outlook, and receipt of daylight into the living space is extremely restricted. This is contrary to policies A1 and CS09 F which seeks to provide a suitable standard of amenity of future residents.
8.The proposal does not address the public open space demands of the development, whether by on-site provision through means to secure financial contributions towards off-site provision, as required under policy H4, and it has not been demonstrated that it is otherwise unviable to do so or that there is a surplus of open space within the ward rendering the requirement unnecessary. As such, the impacts of the development and the pressures the development places on public open spaces have not been mitigated and the proposal is contrary to Adopted Policy H4.
9.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.