| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal would see an extension and additional floor installed to Vauxhall House. This increased mass and bulk would exacerbate the existing building's poor relationship with the surrounding context, and would make it appear overly dominant in the street scene which would visually jar with the adjacent low-lying railway station as well as the wider views across the flat landscape and the River Yare and Breydon Water towards the town centre and being intervisible with the adjoining Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to the design expectations of Core Strategy Policies CS09 and CS17 and Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2 (A) and (B). |
| 2. | The surrounding area is defined by a general prevalence of light industrial buildings mainly constructed out of traditional materials of red brick and pitched roofs. The use of render and steel mesh would introduce new materials which lack reference to the surrounding form and appear alien in this context and out of character with the surrounding material palette, which is exacerbated by the scale and mass of the building, the angular and flat roof, and the largely blank facade treatment to the east elevation. This would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS09 (A) and Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2 (A) and (B). |
| 3. | The area of open space to be provided to the north/east of the building is proposed as a "landscape garden area and drying area for flats". This area is not proposed to be screened off from the public realm and busy access road and therefore it is unlikely to be utilised by future residents and any apparatus for the drying of clothes would likely clutter the street scene due to its prominent position being visible from the main pedestrian approach between the Railway Station and the Town Centre. Furthermore, the noise, disturbance and fumes of traffic alongside the amenity space causes the development to be devoid of suitable quality of defensible amenity space. This is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS09 (C) and (F) and Local Plan Part 2 Policies A1 and A2 (A) and (C). |
| 4. | The site is located within Flood Zone 3 and therefore at high risk of flooding. Whilst the development is considered able to satisfy the flood risk sequential test (by virtue of being within the area allocated for residential-led regeneration through policy CS17) it must nevertheless also pass the flood risk exceptions test. To pass the exceptions test, the development must offer demonstrable sustainability benefits and ensure that the development is safe for its lifetime and does not worsen flood risk elsewhere. Whilst the flats would be safe from flooding (in terms of flood levels and internal flooding to units) the scheme is not considered to provide sufficient benefits to outweigh the flood risk identified (for example, no affordable housing is proposed to offer public benefits, nor is the scheme removing a detrimental building or enhancing the quality of the urban environment, nor does the development provide other regeneration benefits which would have been the expectation of the regeneration policy CS17; by providing a piecemeal development on the wider site allocated by policy CS17 the development could compromise some of the public benefits expected through the same policy and would not provide a contribution of its own towards those aims. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies CS13 and E1, and contrary to the approach of NPPF Paragraph 164. |
| 5. | The application site is located within the Red Within 400 metre Indicative Habitat Impact Zone but the application is not supported by the required £1,115.58 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, and cannot be said to avoid a likely significant effect on designated sites so is not able to pass the Habitats Regulations Assessment. |
| 6. | 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). |
| 7. | 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. |
