Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The application would create an additional dwelling in an area at high risk of flooding and is not one of the forms of development that would be exempt from requiring a justification of the site based on a sequential search of appropriate alternative sites as required by the sequential test (paragraph 168 of the NPPF and Policy E1 of LPP2). Consequently the applicant has failed to consider the potential of suitable and available windfall sites that are within the town of Great Yarmouth and at lower risk of flooding as an alternative location for an additional dwelling, and it is considered likely that there are sites within Great Yarmouth Town which would be at lower flood risk than flood risk zone 3 which would be able to accommodate at least one new dwelling, meaning that a sequential test with this application would be unlikely to be passed. As such it is considered that the fact that the FRA and other supporting information with the application did not include a sequential test to inform the application means that the proposal is contrary to Policy CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015) and Policy E1 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) and the NPPF.
2.By reason of its siting and design with two storey front gable, the extension would be harmful to the character of the existing and neighbouring terraced properties and the area by failing to improve the character of the street scene through development that would reduce the space between buildings in a densely developed urban environment. As such it is contrary to Policy CS9 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015) and Policies A2 and H9 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
3.Through its scale and siting the proposed two-storey front gable extension would appear significantly overbearing when viewed from the rear of No. 1 Camden Place and would provide overlooking from 1st floor windows into the private amenity spaces to the rear of No.1 Camden Place and dwellings on Camden Road, resulting in loss of privacy to those dwellings. As such it is considered that the development is contrary to Policy CS9 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015) and Policies A1, A2 and H9 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021), and paragraph 130(d) of the NPPF.
4.By reason of the gross internal floor area proposed in both dwellings being considerably below the minimum standard for a two bedroom three person dwelling and the floor areas of bedroom spaces in both dwellings not meeting the minimum standards, the internal design of the dwellings is not considered to be appropriate having regard to the Nationally Described Space Standards or Housing Design policies. Through proposing an extension that would occupy the small area of amenity space at the existing dwelling, the proposal would fail to provide adequate amenity space for the future occupiers of the resultant dwellings. As such the proposal is contrary Policy CS9 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015) and Policies A1, A2 and H9 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
5.By reason of the non-payment of the open space contribution of £1440.62 towards the provision and maintenance of off-site public open space the proposal does not accord with Policies H4 and GSP8 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) or Policy CS14 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015).
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.