Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.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 town of Great Yarmouth that could accommodate the modest scale of growth proposed in areas at lower risk of flooding. Whilst acknowledging the contribution that such windfall sites make to that supply of housing, the Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an adequate supply of deliverable housing sites and does not rely on provision of new windfall site housing in Great Yarmouth to maintain the supply. As such the application must be determined in accordance with the development plan and flood risk considerations. There is not sufficient material considerations to suggest that the exception test would be passed, and no other public benefits have been proposed to outweigh the risks of public safety from floor risk, and as such the exceptions test is considered to be failed. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies CS13 and E1, and contrary to the approach of NPPF Paragraph 162.
2.The inclusion of two additional dwellings on this plot would result in the over-development of the site - with dwellings cramped close together with insufficient distance between the back of the donor dwelling and the side of the proposed southern semi detached dwelling and the increased enclosure this creates to no.3 Seafield Close. This also results in the southernmost of the two new dwellings having a limited rear garden area that is surrounded by two storey properties and likely to be in shadow for all but the very end of the day; the proposed garden to the southern dwelling would be cramped and enclosed and would suffer from overshadowing, making it likely to be undesirable to residents and not providing sufficient amenity, contrary to policies CS09 F and A1. This cramped form of development and the over-development of the plot would be jarring in the street scene and as such would be be contrary to policies CS09 A and A2 A. and policy A2 C requires that "there should be sufficient spacing and landscaping around detached homes." This high density form of development would also interrupt the building lines and open nature of the streetscene, which would in turn harm the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area due to the erosion of the open character enjoyed in views in both directions along Kings Road and and the uncomfortable articulation on the rear elevation. This level of harm to heritage assets is considered less than substantial but it would nevertheless be contrary to policies CS10 and E5 which seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment, and there are minimal public benefits associated with the proposal to outweigh the harm to the setting of the conservation areas, and so the proposal is also contrary to the expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 202).
3.The proximity of the southern elevation of the proposed dwellings to the donor dwelling is proposed to be only 4 metres, which would result in the loss of outlook to windows on the northern side of the donor dwelling. The scale, proximity and form of the dwelling are also considered to result in an overbearing and overdominant relationship with the donor dwelling. This would create an oppressive environment for residents living in the donor dwelling due to the increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook. This would be contrary to policies CS09 F and A1 which seek to protect neighbouring amenity.
4.The southern bedroom window on the southernmost of the two proposed dwellings would have limited outlook by virtue of the close proximity of the donor dwelling at only 4 metres separation between elevations. This would result in limited outlook for occupants of the new dwelling's bedroom. The positioning of the proposed window in the south elevation would also mean that there would be overlooking into the rear elevation of the donor dwelling. This overlooking would be harmful to the residential amenity of the occupants of the donor dwelling. The proximity of the new dwelling to the donor dwelling would also lead to unacceptable overlooking from the donor dwelling into the new garden. Cumulatively, these issues mean that the proposal would create an unacceptably low standard of amenity for new residents and would be contrary to policies CS09 F and A1.
5.The two proposed dwellings would have a gross footprint of 63sqm each which suggests the useable internal area would be smaller still. This is considered significantly less than the recommended 70sqm minimum internal area for a 2-bedroom property outlined in national guidance (the national described space standard). As such the space available will be limited for aspects like storage for example, and emphasises the cramped nature of the development given that minimum space standards can't be achieved without compromising the amenity of future residents either by providing appropriate internal living standards or by providing for adequate external facilities. As such the application would fail to comply with policies CS09 F and A1 in failing to provide sufficient amenity to future occupants, and would not meet the design expectations set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (in particular at paragraph 130(f)).
6.The use of corner windows creates a rear (east) elevation which appears ungainly and of uncomfortable proportions which extend the horizontality of the first floor, all in a prominent position in views across the rear gardens of Kings Road to the east, with the backdrop of the Conservation Area behind (west). Given the building's unsuitable proximity to neighbouring boundaries and the likelihood of unacceptable overlooking of gardens to the east, it is considered that an alternative approach to the use of windows in the east and southern elevations is required because at present the proposal fails to meet the design expectations of policies A2 and CS09 A.
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.