Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.By virtue of the unsympathetic form, massing, and the excessive bulk, the proposal is considered not to enhance its immediate setting and would appear incongruous and overly dominant in the street scene. The development does not draw inspiration from its immediate surroundings and the character of the built environment, particularly in its approach to the roof and flat dormers which appear discordant. This is contrary to the design expectations of Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2 and Core Policy CS09 A which seeks to ensure the development respects the surrounding built environment.
2.The property would have an overbearing impact on and domineering relationship to no.34 Burnt Lane by virtue of its height, bulk and proximity to the boundary. Due to the positioning of the building to the south-east of the neighbour, this would result in unacceptable levels of overshadowing and an increased sense of enclosure and is over-dominant which would be harmful to the amenity of the occupier of no.34. Therefore, the application is contrary to Core Policy CS09 F and Local Plan Policy A1 which both seek to protect the amenity of neighbours.
3.The inclusion of windows on the eastern elevation would create unacceptable levels of overlooking into the side widows of Ivy House. This would result in a loss of privacy to neighbours and would have a harmful impact on their amenity. Therefore, the application is contrary to Core Policy CS09 F and Local Plan Policy A1 which both seek to protect the amenity of neighbours.
4.The lack of shared spaces or private gardens/balconies results in an unacceptable provision of outside amenity space for future occupants leading to unacceptable living conditions for future residents. Furthermore, no details have been submitted to demonstrate how the dwellins include any potential for future adaptation, and there appears very limited scope to do so from the plans. The lack of demonstrated outside amenity space and the absence of details regarding the development's capability to be suitable to adaption contribute to an inappropriate level of amenity for future residents and an unacceptable design strategy for new dwellings. This is contrary to policy CS09 F which seeks to ensure adequate amenity provision for future occupiers, and policy A2 F which states that "New homes must be built to meet requirement M4(2) of Part M of the Building Regulations for accessible and adaptable dwellings where practicable."
5.The proposal would fail to meet the County Parking Standards and therefore it would cause additional pressure on local on-street parking - both coming from residents occupying the proposal and impacting existing residents. This is contrary to CS09 E and CS16 C which seek to ensure that adequate parking is provided and that proposals do not adversely effect the efficiency of the highway network.
6.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, and it is considered that there are likely to be suitable alternative available sites within the Borough that could accommodate the scale of growth proposed. Furthermore, the Council can demonstrate an adequate supply of deliverable housing sites and does not rely on new windfall site housing in Gorleston to maintain the supply. Notwithstanding the beneficial use of a brownfield site in a sustainable location, these are not considered to offer sufficient material considerations to suggest that the exception test would be passed, and no other public benefits have been proposed to address the exceptions test. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies CS13 and E1, and contrary to the approach of NPPF Paragraph 162.
7.The proposal does not address the public open space demands of the development, whether by on-site provision or through means to secure financial contributions towards off-site provision, as required by policy H4. It has not been demonstrated that it is otherwise unviable to do so, nor 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.
8.The £770 Habitats Monitoring and Mitigation Scheme contribution has not been made as part of this application. As such, the impact on the designated sites within the Borough cannot be sufficiently mitigated and the application does not comply with CS11 and GSP5 which seeks avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts on these sites associated with the occupancy of new residential and tourist development by way of a financial levy.
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.