Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.In respect of the flood risk Sequential Test: Policy E1: Flood risk of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 states that: "For the purposes of the operation of the sequential test as set out in paragraph a) of Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy, where development is proposed in an area of flood risk as defined by: a. the Council's most recent Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, and/or b. the Environment Agency 'Flood Map for Planning'. the following will apply for residential development: c. For sites within Great Yarmouth Town the area of search for alternative sites can be limited to Great Yarmouth Town. d. For sites outside of Great Yarmouth Town the area of search for alternative sites will need to cover the entire Borough and be considered against the overall supply of housing in the Borough. e. For sites comprising 100% affordable housing to meet local needs or exception sites under Policy CS4 the area of search for alternative sites will need to cover the area the specific need is arising from. Where non-residential uses are proposed, areas of search should be applied proportionately depending upon the type of use. Planning applications within areas of flood risk (as defined above) will need to be supported by a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan which covers flood warnings, escape routes and procedures, and awareness of the risks involved. The Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan will be secured by a planning condition." Reason 1: The site is within the Environment Agency's defined tidal flooding Flood Risk Zone 3a, in respect of both the access route and the proposed development area. Core Strategy policy CS13 expects new residential development to be directed away from area of highest risk of flooding unless it can be demonstrated that the requirements of a sequential test have been met, and thereafter, the exception test criteria have also been passed. Local Plan Part 2 policy E1 requires that a residential development in Gorleston should be subject to a sequential test assessment that is undertaken across an area of the whole Borough. These principles are consistent with the expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework. As this is a development proposing to construct a net increase of 6 dwellings on an unallocated (windfall) site, a sequential test assessment is necessary. No sequential assessment has been put forward by the applicant. It is considered that in this case there are likely to be alternative sites in the Borough which are both of a size and capacity that are able to accommodate 6 dwellings and which are available for residential development, and which are at a lower risk from flooding. In the absence of a submitted sequential assessment, and given the likelihood of alternative and more suitable and sustainable sites being available at lower flood risk, it is considered that the proposal would fail the requirement to pass the sequential test. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy policy CS13 and Local Plan Part 2 policy E1, and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021: paragraphs 153, 154(a), 159 and 162).
2.In respect of the flood risk Exception Test: Notwithstanding that it is considered likely that the development could be accommodated elsewhere in the Borough on suitable and available alternative sites, in addition to passing the sequential test the development would also need to pass the Exception Test to be considered suitable for approval as required by Core Strategy policy CS13 and the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF Paragraphs 164 - 165 states that: "To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that: (a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and (b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall." Both elements should be passed before the development can be considered for approval. Reason 2: The proposal offers 7no. 4-bedroom bungalow dwellings (a net increase of 6 dwellings) at a time when the Local Planning Authority is able to demonstrate a housing land supply of some 6.98 years, as confirmed by the adoption of the Local Plan Part 2 in December 2021. Furthermore, there is no dependency on housing developments to be approved on unallocated or 'windfall' sites for the housing land supply to be maintained. The development has not proposed any form of wider sustainability benefits for the local community that could be considered to outweigh the flood risks affecting future residents and/or that could be exacerbated by development within the flood zone. Exceptions Test part (a) has therefore not been satisfied. In considering safety during the lifetime of the development, it is noted that even the proposed raised site levels would not be immune from flooding as flood events would cause inundation of the site between 1.37m and 1.64m, and of 0.92m within individual dwellings. Whilst refuge is possible at first floor, the development will still present avoidable flood risk to all residents and the emergency services because of the lack of dry access or evacuation routes to dwellings. Furthermore, the development proposes that the vast majority of the site should be developed and hard-surfaced and proposes no sustainable drainage strategy to deal with surface water in particular. This is considered unacceptable as there are no proposals to reduce surface water run-off and no proposals presented to demonstrate how the development will avoid displacing flood waters elsewhere, and in particular to adjoining residential dwellings. The development therefore fails to avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and does not reduce flood risk overall. Exceptions Test part (b) has therefore not been satisfied. As such it is considered that there are no material considerations to suggest that the development should be approved contrary to adopted development plan policy CS13A, and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular the Exceptions Test set out at paragraphs 164, 165 and 167.
3.Local Plan Part 2 Policy E4: Trees and landscape states that: "Development will be supported where it: a. retains trees, hedgerows, including ancient trees and hedgerows, and landscape features which contribute significant value to the character, amenity or ecology to the locality; and b. takes opportunities to enhance those features and qualities, commensurate with the scale and nature of the development. Where development may impact upon trees, planning applications should be supported by an arboricultural assessment (to BS 5837 or an equivalent standard). Developments should include landscaping schemes as appropriate to the size and nature of the development in order to mitigate impacts on and where possible enhance the local landscape character." Reason 3: No Arboricultural Assessment or Preliminary Ecological Assessment was submitted to support the proposed development. In this case there are trees, hedges and a pond on the site which are of value to the character, amenity or ecology to the locality. The site is in the Amber Zone for great crested newts (GCN). Natural England advise that GCN would be expected to occur in the area. A tree preservation order TPO No.16 2021 was confirmed on 24/01/2022. Protected Trees T1 (sweet chestnut), T2 (Lime) would require removal to accommodate Plot 1 and Plot 7. The roots of T3 (Copper beech) and T4 (lime) will likely be impacted by any works to alter and improve the access and associated surface water drainage of the access. The absence of protection or mitigations to accommodate the protected trees is considered unacceptable and contrary to adopted policies E4 and CS9. In addition there would be a loss of significant other tree cover and screening which could have a negative effect on the amenity of residents particularly to the south and west, and together the impacts on the landscape character of the area would be detrimental and contrary to adopted policies A2 and E3 in addition to failing to address policy E4 and CS9. It is considered that insufficient consideration has been given to the inclusion of existing landscape features and habitat to inform the proposed layout and to protect and enhance biodiversity. The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the mature trees that are located on the site and which contribute significant landscape and biodiversity value to the character, amenity and ecology of the locality, contrary to the above policy.
4.Local Plan Part 2 Policy H4 Open space for new housing development requires the provision 103 square metres of formal and informal open space with a development and off site where impractical. In this case a strip of land adjacent the access in the SW corner of the site which is the location of a copper beach tree (T3) as identified in the tree preservation order could be considered informal amenity space but makes only a very small contribution to the overall demands and requirements of the proposed development. Reason 4: No other provision has been made in the proposed layout to address the open space requirements of future residents, therefore, the balance of provision for outdoor sport, informal amenity green space, children's play space allotments, parks and gardens and accessible natural green space would need to be provided off site by way of a commuted financial contribution. A contribution of £12,400.92 would be required to address the requirements of the development, but no adequate on site provision of open space has been proposed, and no financial contribution in lieu has been provided or proposed to be provided by legal agreement. The proposed development is therefore contrary to adopted policies GSP8 and H4 of the Local Plan Part 2.
5.Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy encouraging well designed, distinctive places, encourages other aspects of design considering a sites context and local character and protecting amenity. This is expanded on in Local Plan Part 2 policies A1 Amenity and A2 Housing Design Principles including considerations of overlooking and loss of privacy, structures that are overbearing, nuisance and disturbance from noise and visual movement. Policy A2 seeks that new development should reflect and have regard to the local context. At this outline stage it is not possible to fully assess these impacts without further details of the proposed dwellings. Reason 5: While the proposed layout is of a similar density to the land to the south and east, it is considered that the proposed layout of 7 large dwellings that are likely to be 2 storey in overall effective height will likely introduce overlooking and an overbearing impact on adjoining dwellings unless designed otherwise. There is insufficient information to determine that the application will not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of both the future occupants of the dwellings in the development and the existing occupants of adjoining dwellings. Details would need to be provided of any first and second floor windows and their orientation, also the massing of roofs, the ridge and eaves heights to help minimise overbearing or overshadowing effects. The layout also lacks the retention of existing biodiversity and landscaping features which would erode the verdant character of the area. In combination the development is considered to be contrary to adopted policies CS9 of the Core Strategy and E3, A1 and A2 of the Local Plan Part 2.
6.Local Plan Part 2 Policy I3 Foul drainage requires that necessary infrastructure can be provided in time to serve the development. The application form identifies that foul drainage would be to mains sewer. The Environmental Health Officer has commented that other developments have had to install private pumping stations that Anglian Water will not adopt. Potential failure of such systems could give rise to nuisance and pollution of groundwater. The application also identifies that surface water would be disposed of to soakaways. It is standard practice for surface water drainage to be designed using a sustainable drainage strategy but the Environmental Health Officer also noted that the water table is high in this location, which would tend to limit the possibility of infiltration of surface water, so alternate methods of surface water detention would be required, with discharge to the sewer to be considered only as a last resort. These details would also ensure that a full appreciation of the flood risk of the site could be understood and accommodated. Reason 6: No details have been provided to show that foul water capacity exists, and no drainage strategy has been provided to confirm that surface water can be discharged by sustainable means other than into the foul system or a combined sewer. It is considered that a drainage strategy would be required to demonstrate that the site could be served with suitable foul drainage infrastructure and surface water attenuation. The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted policies CS13 of the Core Strategy and I3 of the Local Plan Part 2.
7.Local Plan Part 2 Policy E6 Pollution and hazards in development requires that applicants demonstrate their proposals shall avoid giving rise to unacceptable hazards or pollution as a result. Reason 7: As the site of a former highways, heavy goods vehicle depot, there is the possibility of contamination of the land from that use. Where the proposed use of the land is residential, a type one desk top survey identifying potential contamination should be provided to assess the need for on site investigation and mitigation where identified. No details of a site investigation for existing contamination has been provided including risk of contamination to groundwaters resulting from the proposed development, so it is not possible to ascertain that the development can be considered acceptable in principle without risk to future occupants, neighbouring uses and neighbours, or other environmental receptors, contrary to adopted policies CS11 of the Core Strategy and E6 of the Local Plan Part 2.
8.Local Plan Part 2 Policy GSP5 and Core Strategy policy CS11 requires that applicants demonstrate their proposals shall avoid giving rise to unacceptable levels of harm to internationally protected wildlife sites, and be able to mitigate the impacts thereon. A contribution of £1,115.58 would be required to address the requirements of the development and the Habitat Regulations Assessment. Reason 8: As the site falls within the impact risk zone of internationally protected habitats and wildlife sites, it is required to quantify and address the impacts from the proposed net additional increase of 6 dwellings within the development site. Although the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment has proposed how the development impacts can be addressed, the mitigation measures require a financial contribution to enable the management and monitoring of the impacts on protected sites. A contribution of £1,115.58 would be required to address the requirements of the development, but no financial contribution has been provided or proposed to be provided by legal agreement. The proposed development is therefore contrary to adopted policies CS11 of the Core Strategy and GSP5 and GSP8 of the Local Plan Part 2.
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.