| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | By virtue of its scale, the proposed annex is not considered to offer an ancillary form of accommodation to the main dwelling. The annex fails to appear subordinate to the main dwelling due to the intensity of the proposed use, and in terms of its use and appearance the proposed unit of accommodation would be tantamount to creating an independent dwelling within the site, evidenced by the fact that the accommodation would provide its own kitchen and living facilities along with a separate bedroom, bathroom and storage area. As such, the annex would be capable of providing independent accommodation separate to the main dwelling and therefore would fail to remain an ancillary use, or be subordinate in scale or intensity of use, to the principal dwelling, as is required to be considered an annex. The proposal would therefore be considered to be contrary to policy H10 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021). |
| 2. | Due to the size of the proposed building being analogous to an independent bungalow and level of detachment from the donor dwelling, the annex building would be out of keeping with the surrounding built form and be of a scale far in excess of what would be expected for an outbuilding. This conflict with the surrounding character would be exacerbated by the contrasting use of hardiplank cladding which would further appear alien in the local context. The proposal would therefore be considered to be contrary to policies H9, H10 and A1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021) and Core Strategy Policy CS09 of the adopted Core Strategy (2021) along with along with Paragraphs 130 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021). |
| 3. | The intensity of the use of the annex being analogous to an independent dwelling would likely lead to increased vehicle movements to and from the shared parking area, as well as pedestrian movements to the annex located at the far end of the garden. These resultant movements would likely lead to increased noise and disturbance to neighbours from additional comings and goings which would be detrimental to the amenity of the direct neighbours due to the close proximity. This would be considered contrary to Policy CS09 of the Core Strategy (2015) and Policy A1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021). |
| 4. | The application site is located within the Green 2.5km+ Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by the required £210.84 per dwelling 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 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) which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development. |
| 5. | 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. |
