Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.Due to the mass and scale of the proposed dwelling and its siting, the development creates an increased sense of enclosure, overshadowing and sense of overbearing to the occupiers of 44 North Quay from which the proposal seeks to be subdivided. An increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook would also be experienced by the residential properties to the immediate east of the subject site, (No 17 and 18 Patterson Close Rows). Therefore, the proposal is contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) policy CS09 F and adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) policies A1 and A2 which both seek to protect the amenity of neighbours.
2.Insufficient quality and provision of outdoor amenity space is proposed for a three-bedroom dwelling, and furthermore, insufficient information has been provided to assess the degree of usable private amenity space for the proposed development. Accordingly, it is considered that the living conditions of the future occupiers of the proposed family sized dwelling would be unsatisfactory with no defensible and private amenity space within the development, and accordingly the proposal is contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) policy CS09 F and adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) policies A1 and A2 which both seek to provide a suitable standard of residential amenity for occupants of proposed residential dwellings.
3.The proximity, scale and form of the development would be contrary to the expectations of maintaining and enhancing the character of the streetscene and surrounding areas and townscape, due to its design and mass being contrary to the prevailing form and appearance of the existing dwellings/streetscene. The scale and height of the proposal would combine to create an unacceptable scale and mass which fails to be subordinate or subservient to the existing site and surrounding dwellings, causing the development to be at odds with the surrounding form, and as such would fail to maintain or enhance the setting and appearance of the dwellings from the north. Appropriate designs within the context of adjacent heritage assets as the neighbouring Conservation Areas should maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the local area and the heritage interest, prevailing development character and the street scene, its immediate surroundings and the wider townscape or landscape. It is considered that the proposal would not achieve this, being detrimental to, and unsympathetic with, the character and appearance, scale and massing. The scale of the proposed features (windows/dormers/openings) would not harmonise well with the surrounding dwellings in the Conservation Area. Therefore, the application is contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) policies CS09 and CS10, and adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) policies A2 and E5, and is contrary to the expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4.It is considered that the alternative sites assessed in the submitted flood risk sequential test, and the criteria used to assess them, have not been extensive enough to adequately confirm there are no other possible suitable, available and deliverable sites at lower risk of flooding in the required search area which would be suitable for accommodating a single 3-bedroom dwelling. Accordingly it is considered that the application has not addressed Policy CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015) nor Policy E1 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021), nor satisfied the expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework as it fails to demonstrate that the scale of development cannot be directed towards areas of lower risk of flooding.
5.Notwithstanding the site location being within the development limits, at a time when the Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a housing supply in excess of 5 years and an associated buffer, there are not considered to be sufficient wider sustainability benefits that justify the development being sited in an area at the greatest risk of flooding, and therefore the application fails to satisfy the flood risk sequential test requirement, and is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) policies CS13, adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) policy E1, and is contrary to the expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework.
6.The application site is located within the Orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by an up-to-date shadow template Habitats Regulations Assessment nor evidence of the required £210.84 per dwelling GIRAMS contribution having been paid, both of which are necessary for the purposes of satisfying the Council's duty to avoid impacts on internationally protected sites through the use of the Green Infrastructure Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (GIRAMS). As such the Local Planning Authority and the Council as Competent Authority under the Habitats Regulations cannot fully assess the additional impact, in terms of indirect and direct impacts upon the internationally-designated sites within the Borough, without satisfaction that the required mitigation would be provided. As a result, the application is contrary to the adopted Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS11 and CS14, and the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 Policies GSP5 and GSP8 (2021) which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development.
7.ADVISORY NOTES: (1) This application was subject to the following plan nos. 1691/1, received 7th March 2022, and 1691/1 Rev.A(Mar'23)1/Dormer amended, received by the Local Planning Authority on 23rd November 2023. (2) It is hereby acknowledged that the application has been accompanied by the appropriate and necessary financial contributions for addressing off-site Public Open Space as required by Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy H4, comprising a payment of £1,647.33 made on 7th October 2022.
8.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.