Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The application proposes part of the ground floor to change from Class E to residential use (C3). The application site is located within a Local Centre defined by Policy R5 and here the change the use of existing active ground floor uses to uses other than retail, leisure, community and offices is not permitted. The loss of Class E floor space would likely restrain the usability and vitality of the resultant smaller commercial unit and would have a resultant detrimental effect on the Local Centre. The principle of a ground floor flat in this location therefore is not supported. The application therefore is contrary to Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy R5.
2.The proposed flat would have an irregular floor plan which would constrain the functionality and usability of the internal space. Moreover, due to this irregular floor plan, parts of the kitchen/living area would likely not benefit from adequate levels of natural light. The result of this, especially when combined with a lack of private outdoor amenity space, would be an oppressive living environment for future residents, with the proposal failing to provide sufficient levels of amenity for occupiers of the flat. The application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) CS09 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A1.
3.The site is within Flood Zone 3 and would not provide a safe form of accommodation during a flood event. Of particular concern is the safety of potential occupiers because of the nature of the ground floor flat with a lack of safe refuge. The Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that in the 0.5% (1 in 200) annual probability with climate change flood event the flat would flood internally by 0.81m depth. As such, accommodation would be at greater risk of flooding in comparison with the existing use of the property (the lawful Class E use being a less vulnerable use). In a flood risk event, the development would create a potential danger for loss of life - with there being similar concerns to the presence of sleeping accommodation on the ground floor. As such, the proposal does not comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS13 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E1.
4.The application proposes the removal of some key features which reflect the historic use of the building (security bars), along with the insertion of a new "shop window" and security shutters, the full details of which have not been provided. The application is located within the King Street Conservation Area which is a designated heritage asset on Historic England's at risk register. The proposed changes would generate a harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area towards the lower end of less than substantial. However, this harm has not been justified as is required by paragraph 200 of the NPPF (September 2023) and nor does the proposal generate any public benefits which would outweigh the level of harm generated, as outlined in paragraph 202 of the NPPF. As such, the scheme is considered contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS09 and CS10 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E5, along with Paragrpahs 200 and 202 of the NPPF (September 2023) and does not accord with the requirements of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which expect that proposals preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.
5.The application form states that the bins for the proposed flat would be "As Existing. Bins stored within Rear Courtyard. See Plans TD011122-PP-1." This rear courtyard is small at only approximately 5sqm and also serves as the access to the first floor flat and the fire exit to the commercial unit. It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient space within this courtyard for further bin storage and moreover this courtyard also serves windows to the proposed flat and the commercial unit and there are concerns that further bin storage could give rise to conditions detrimental to residential amenity through the increase in odours and flies. In the absence of it being demonstrated that there is a suitable place for bins storage, the application is contrary to Core Strategy (2015) CS09 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A1.
6.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 or 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 and the Council as Competent Authority under the Habitats Regulations cannot fully assess the additional impact, in terms of indirect and direct impacts upon the internationally-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).
7.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. 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).
8.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.