Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The application site is located outside the village development limits and the proposal seeks the conversion of an existing stable block to provide one residential dwelling. As such the proposal should be assessed against policy H7 from the adopted Local Plan Part 2. The existing stable blocks are considered of typical construction for equestrian use, and would not be considered to merit heritage or landscape value. Although a structural survey has been submitted with the application, the building is not considered to be of permanent and substantial construction, nor a building where the retention would be deemed as enhancing its immediate setting. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies GSP1 and H7 of the Local Plan Part 2.
2.The village of Browston does not benefit from a settlement limit and is defined as a 'Tertiary Village' under Policy CS2, where there are limited local services and facilities. The site has a lack of safe pedestrian access to local amenities, and is over a km away from the neaby settlements of Belton and Bradwell. It is therefore considered that there would be a reliance on the private car for future occupants of the proposed development. As such it would be contrary to core policy CS01(e) from the adopted Core Strategy, which seeks to ensure that new developments provide easy access for everyone to jobs, shops and community facilities by walking, cycling and public transport. Furthermore, it is considered that the application would not comply with core policy CS02 from the adopted Core Strategy which seeks to balance the delivery of new homes with the creation of self-contained communities and reducing the need to travel.
3.The submission does not include an up-to-date assessment of the potential impacts of protected species, and it is therefore not possible to assess whether the conversion would result in the loss of protected species (such as barn owls and bats) and habitats, or whether any other ecological mitigation would be required to make the proposal acceptable, as required by policy CS11 of the Core strategy and policy H7 of the Local Plan Part 2.
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 nor the increase in payment to provide the required £210.84 per dwelling GIRAMS contribution, 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 cannot fully assess the additional impact, in terms of indirect and direct impacts upon the 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) which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development.
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, in an area where there is an identified deficit in some types of open space. 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.