Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The proposed layout, and the use of a circular turning head as the central feature, does not respect the built form or urban grain of the surrounding area. This has knock on consequences to the proposed siting of the properties and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. Of particular concern is the uncomfortable relationship with the donor dwelling that the semi-detached units would have which is exacerbated by their positioning forward of the front elevation of the donor dwelling. The proposal would fail to comply with Core Strategy Policy CS09 A and Local Plan Part 2 policy A2 A which requires development to respect the surrounding built character and form of the area, and is contrary to Paragraphs 130 and 134 of the NPPF (2021) which advocates good design.
2.The dwellings fail to take inspiration from the donor dwelling and would look alien on the site. The dwellings are lacking any design features which would help them to relate to the donor dwelling and fail to relate to neighbouring properties as well, especially the character found along Lowestoft Road. As such, the application fails to comply with policies Core Strategy Policy CS09 A and Local Plan Part 2 policy A2 A as they would appear out of character with the surrounding area and is contrary to Local Plan Part 2 policy A2 B which requires that "New homes should be architecturally locally distinctive, innovative and visually attractive through the scale and proportions, use of materials, facades and detailing.". The development is also contrary to the expectations of Paragraphs 130 and 134 of the NPPF (2021) which advocate and require good design reflective of local character.
3.Plot 1 would sit on the corner of the A47 Lowestoft Road and Bridge Road. The proposal does not have an active frontage facing west and sees its rear garden and private areas front on to the A47. The proposal would fail to promote positive relationships between the dwelling and the street and thus fails to create a safe, attractive street and fails to limit the opportunities for crime by creating an active frontage with enhanced natural surveillance. This would be contrary to Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2 C and Core Strategy Policy CS09 C and Paragraphs 130 and 134 of the NPPF (2021).
4.Due to the proposed siting of the semi detached properties, 4 trees covered by the Area Tree Preservation Order (TPO no.1 1965) are proposed to be removed. At least one of these trees have been identified by the Local Planning Authority to be worthy of protection and should be retained through specific protection. The trees' removal has not been demonstrated as being necessary and the dwellings appear not to have been sited to mitigate the impact on the trees on site. This is contrary to Local Plan Part 2 policy E4 A which requires proposals to "[retain] trees, hedgerows, including ancient trees and hedgerows, and landscape features which contribute significant value to the character, amenity or ecology to the locality". The application has not provided any form of Arboricultural Implications Assessment setting out the required Tree Constraints Plan, Tree Protection Plan, or Arboricultural Method Statement necessary to demonstrate how trees will be protected before, during and after the works are undertaken. This fails to address requirements of policy E4 and Core Strategy policy CS11 by not demonstrating how the trees will be protected.
5.The site has potential to provide habitat conducive to nesting birds and other species including small mammals due to its overgrown condition. The application is not supported by any information to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the ecology within the site or that any migratory solutions have been proposed, and it does not propose notable ecological enhancement. As such, the application is contrary to Core Strategy policy CS11 F which requires that all new development takes measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts on existing biodiversity.
6.The application site is located within the Green 2.5km+ Indicative Habitat Impact Zone but the application is not supported by the required £557.79 GIRAMS contribution, which is necessary for the purposes of satisfying the Council's duty to avoid impacts on internationally protected site through the use of the Green Infrastructure Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (GIRAMS). As such the Local Planning Authority cannot fully assess the additional impact upon the designated sites within the Borough without satisfaction that the required mitigation would be provided. Consequently, the application is contrary to Core Policy CS11 from the Core Strategy and Local Plan Part 2 Policies GSP5 and GSP8 which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development.
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 adopted Local Plan Part 2 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 policy H4 and the application fails to comply with Core Strategy policies CS14 (Securing appropriate contributions from new Developments) and CS15 (Providing and protecting community assets and green infrastructure), and Local Plan Part 2 policy GSP8 (Planning Obligations).
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.