Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The erection of a dwelling and garage within the rear curtilage of North House would result in the proposed dwelling failing to have a positive relationship with Winterton Road due to its backland positioning and constrained and narrow access. Due to the constrained plot the proposed detached bungalow and detached garage would result in a cramped, confined and awkward form of development which would be out of keeping with the surrounding character and appearance of the area. The proposal therefore fails to provide a form of development which is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and therefore the application fails to comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS1 and CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, and fails to address Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (December 2023) and the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (adopted January 2024).
2.Access to the proposed dwelling would be via a narrow access road bound immediately on both sides by fencing. This would exacerbate the cramped nature of the proposed development and the appearance this creates of a constrained access would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area which sees generous parking areas to the front of the dwelling, the impact of which would be increased were the extant permission for a side extension to North House to be constructed. The lack of available space to allow for landscaping to soften the impact of this access drive would also have an urbanising impact on the site, which sits on the rural fringe of the village. The application fails to comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS1 and CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, and fails to address Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (December 2023) and the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (adopted January 2024).
3.The submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment conflicts with the information provided on the submitted indicative layout plan. Therefore, it is not clear whether the protected Category B ash tree (T4 of TPO No.6 of 2011) would be felled as a result of the proposal and if so, no information has been provided with regards to any replacement planting. The LPA cannot be certain that the protected ash tree would not be felled to facilitate the development, or that any of the other protected trees within and adjoining the site would be suitably protected from the effects of the development and the construction process. The development will involve significant harm and intervention works to the protected beech and ash trees, and possibly even involve the loss of the protected ash tree, but these have not been justified and the likely harms to the remaining protected trees have not been avoided, and in some cases have not been surveyed and assessed. As such, the development cannot be confirmed as being able to avoid a detrimental and unacceptable impact on the protected trees, or to justify removal of the unprotected trees and confirm appropriate capacity and suitability for replacement planting, which also means that the development has not been designed to preserve and accommodate these natural features into the development proposals, to the detriment of ecology, biodiversity and landscape and the townscape setting. The application therefore does not comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS09 and CS11, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) policies E4 and A2, and is in conflict with NPPF (December 2023) Paragraphs 180(d) and 186.
4.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, or by the full GIRAMS mitigation contribution of £221.17, both of which are 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 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) Policy CS11 and the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 Policies GSP5 and GSP8 (2021).
5.The proposal has failed to address the public open space requirements of the development, whether by on-site provision or through means to secure financial contributions towards off-site provision. As such, the impacts of the development and the pressures the development places on public open spaces have not been mitigated. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS14 and CS15 and Policies GSP8 and H4 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
6.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.