Great Yarmouth Borough Council

No.	Condition Text
1.	The property is a Grade II listed building located within the Camperdown Conservation Area. The proposal seeks to make what could be significant alterations to the interior and exterior of the property. The application is not supported by a Heritage Impact Assessment [Heritage Statement] to evidence the significance of the heritage asset as currently stands or justify the proposed alterations. As such, insufficient information has been submitted for fully assess the impacts of the application. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS10 and Local Plan Part 2 Policy E5 and National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 194 which requires development proposals which have the potential to impact on Heritage Assets or their settings to be supported by a Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by an individual with relevant expertise.
2.	The different appearance and character of contemporary uPVC windows are considered unsuitable due to the design and detailing of such windows not following traditional approaches. The loss of traditional timber windows as a result of this development would be harmful to the appearance of the Listed Building and this would subsequently harm the significance of the Conservation Area. As such, the application is contrary to adopted Core Strategy policy CS09 A which requires proposals to respect the surrounding context including historic characteristics - such as form and materials - and contrary to adopted Local Plan Part 2 policy E5 and Core Strategy Policy CS10 and Paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and contrary to the expectation of Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, with respect to the harm caused to the historic environment. Paragraph 200 requires that there should be clear and convincing justification when any harm is proposed; no justification has been given although it is noted that the windows are likely in need of repair - this could likely be resolved through use of replacement timber windows, or alternative windows of more sympathetic and complementary appearance, or through repairs to the existing windows, or use of secondary glazing, for example. It is therefore considered that, in the absence of appropriate materials or adequate details in respect of the proposed replacement units, the development will create harm to the appearance of the building and the wider detrimental impact on the significance and character of the conservation area and the historic setting of the neighbouring listed buildings, which is not resolved nor outweighed by public benefit. Paragraph 202 of the NPPF requires that any level of less than substantial harm to either or both of designated or undesignated heritage assets should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, there would be a fairly high degree of less than substantial harm to both the designated Conservation Area and the designated building itself. It is not considered that this application presents a public benefit which outweighs the harm caused to the appearance of the building and the wider detrimental impact on the significance and character of the Conservation Area and Listed Building.
3.	The basement flat would not offer a satisfactory level of amenity to future residents and could provide an oppressive living environment due to limited outlook and potential lack of natural daylight. This is contrary to Local Plan Part policy A1 Core Strategy Policy CS09 F which seeks to provide high levels of amenity for all future residents.
4.	The application proposes to store all of the refuse bins for the four flats between the boundary railings and the northern facing wall of no.25 Camperdown. This will add additional clutter to the street scene to the detriment of the Conservation Area and setting of the Listed Building. This would also be contrary to Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2 F which requires all new residential units to have convenient and discreet bin storage.
5.	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 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 policies CS14 (Securing appropriate contributions from new Developments), CS15 (Providing and protecting community assets and green infrastructure) and GSP8 (Planning Obligations).
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.