Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The site is within Flood Zone 3 and would not provide a safe form of accommodation within a flood event. Of particular concern is the safety of potential occupiers because of the nature of the ground floor flat. The Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that in the 0.5% (1 in 200) annual probability with climate change flood event the flat would flood internally by 1.61m depth - resulting in the flat being almost totally submerged. As such, accommodation would be at greater risk of flooding in comparison with the authorised use of the property (the former retail use 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.
2.The site is located within Flood Zone 3 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 town of Great Yarmouth that could accommodate the modest 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 Great Yarmouth to maintain the supply although it does acknowledge the contribution that such windfall sites make to that 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.
3.The flat would provide a cramped form of accommodation for future occupants which would be of insufficient size to provide adequate levels of amenity to future occupants. This is contrary to policies A1 and CS09 F which seeks to provide a suitable standard of amenity of future residents, and for comparison is significantly below the national suggested minimum sizes within Government's technical guidance.
4.The loss of the historic shop front and the subsequent unsympathetic elevations has a harmful effect on the appearance of the property and also on the setting of the adjacent Conservation area. The harm caused by the loss of traditional features and the resulting impact on the appearance of the terrace and setting 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, contrary to the expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework.
5.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. Lack of payment also fails the requirements of policies CS14 (Securing appropriate contributions from new Developments), CS15 (Providing and protecting community assets and green infrastructure) and GSP8 (Planning Obligations). Furthermore, it is noted that the financial contribution required to mitigate impacts on internationally designated protected wildlife sites has increased during the consideration of this application and rather than £110 per dwelling should be £185.93p per dwelling and the balance would need to be settled for the proposal to address policies CS14, CS15, GSP5 (protecting ecology) and GSP8, and to pass the Habitats Regulations Assessment's Appropriate Assessment.
6.The absence of external amenity space or storage areas for refuse means the development needs to propose refuse container storage outside the window of the adjoining dwelling, which would cause an unacceptable impact on the outlook for those adjoining occupants and lead to unacceptable amenity by virtue of the odour of positioning the bins in this location. This is contrary to policies A1 and CS09 F which seeks to provide a suitable standard of amenity of neighbouring residents.
7.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.