Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The site is located within Flood Zone 2 and therefore at high risk of flooding. There has been a sequential test submitted as part of the application however it fails to adequately identify and discount alternative sites for the development, especially when considering those sites within Flood Zone 1 which may not have been assessed due to the limiting criteria set out within the sequential test submitted. It is considered that there are likely to be suitable alternative available sites within the town of Great Yarmouth, that could accommodate the modest scale of growth proposed, in areas at lower risk of flooding. The submitted sequential test is not considered robust enough to provide confidence that there are no other comparable sites available for delivery of a single dwelling, in Flood Risk Zone 1. As such the application must be determined in accordance with the development plan and flood risk considerations. There are no other public benefits proposed to outweigh the risks of public safety from flood risk. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies CS13 and E1, and contrary to the approach of NPPF Paragraph 162.
2.The proposed dwelling would appear at odds with the existing urban grain and this, in combination with the 5m separation distance to the donor dwelling, creates an awkward and uncomfortable relationship between the proposed dwelling and its place in the streetscene and the surroundings, and with the donor dwelling itself. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policy CS09 A and Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2.
3.The positioning of the proposed dwelling would interrupt the building lines and open nature of the streetscene, which would in turn harm the setting of the adjacent Conservation Areas due to the erosion of the open character enjoyed in views in both directions along Kings Road, detracting from the character and appearance of the historic setting. This level of harm to heritage assets is considered less than substantial but it would nevertheless be a significant degree of less-than-substantial harm, and contrary Core Strategy Policy CS10 and Local Plan Part 2 policy E5. As there are harms caused to the heritage value of the area, the application must demonstrate adequate public benefits to outweigh the harm. In this instance, the supply of new housing is considered to be the principal benefit associated with the development. Whilst acknowledging the contribution that such windfall sites make to that supply of housing, the Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a strong supply of deliverable housing sites across the Borough and does not rely on provision of new windfall site housing in Great Yarmouth to maintain the supply, which currently stands at 7.24 years housing land supply. As such, there are considered minimal public benefits associated with the proposal and those benefits are not considered to outweigh the harm caused to the setting of the Conservation Areas, and so the proposal is also contrary to the expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 202).
4.The proximity of the southern elevation of the proposed dwellings to the donor dwelling is proposed to be only 5 metres, which would result in the loss of outlook to windows on the northern side of the donor dwelling. The scale, proximity and form of the dwelling are also considered to result in an overbearing and overdominant relationship with the donor dwelling, which also causes an unacceptable level of enclosure to the donor property. These factors would combine to create an oppressive environment for residents living in the donor dwelling due to the increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook. This would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS09 F and Local Plan Part 2 policy A1.
5.The rear window on the east elevation (to bedroom 3) would offer views into 3 Seafield Close to the east resulting in significant levels of overlooking and affording views into their more private immediate rear garden area and into the rear windows of the neighbouring dwelling. This would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy and harm to neighbouring amenity. This would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS09 F and Local Plan Part 2 policy A1.
6.The application site is located within the Orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone but the application is not supported by the required £185.93 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).