Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The site is located outside of the development limits, in a strategic gap (as defined by GSP3), and is in an unsustainable location remote from schools, town centre shopping, health provision, and has restricted employment opportunities with limited scope for improving access by sustainable modes. The distance from the nearest service centre provision precludes any realistic opportunity of encouraging a modal shift away from the private car, with there being insufficient facilities nearby to meet day to day needs. Therefore the site is not located to minimise the need to travel and is not in a sustainable location for new development. The self/custom build nature of this proposal does not outweigh these harms. As a result, the proposed development conflicts with the aims of sustainable development and does not satisfy the requirements of Policies CS01 and CS02 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and Policies GSP1 and GSP3 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
2.The scale, bulk and massing of the proposed dwelling, along with its alien material palette would result in an over dominant dwelling in the street scene which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal fails to accord with the principles of good housing design outlined in Policy A2, including lacking an active frontage and there would be a poor relationship between the proposed dwelling and the road. As a result, the proposal fails to comply with Policy CS09 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and Policy A2 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) along with Paragraphs 126, 130 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (September 2023).
3.The site is located within the setting of several buildings of historic importance, including the Grade II Listed The Grange Hotel, Boarded Barn Farmhouse and Barn 25 Metres North Of Boarded Barn Farmhouse. The poor design of the dwelling, referred to in reason for refusal above, would harm the setting of these listed buildings through the dwelling being out of keeping with the prevailing character and surrounding built form. Whilst this harm would fall towards the lower end of less than substantial ham, this has not been justified nor does the scheme provide any public benefits which would outweigh this harm. As such, the application fails to comply with Policies CS09 and CS10 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and Policy E5 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) along with paragraphs 200 and 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (September 2023). The proposal fails to preserve the setting of these Listed Buildings and conflicts with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
4.The erection of a dwelling on the plot would lead to the over-development of the site resulting in cramped form of development including a garden of insufficient size to the donor dwelling of only approximately 5 metres in depth which would be out of keeping with the surrounding urban grain which comprises dwellings with good sized private rear gardens contributing to the character and appearance of the area. The reduced sized garden to the donor dwelling would be further constrained due to its relationship with the donor dwelling (being positioned to the north of the gable wall) and the boundary fence and therefore suffer from an unbearable sense of enclosure and overshadowing which would lead to conditions detrimental to residential amenity. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy CS09 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015), Policies A1 and A2 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) and Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (September 2023).
5.The site has potential to provide habitat conducive to nesting birds and other species within the structures which are proposed to be demolished. The application is not supported by any information to establish the existing baseline conditions on the site or to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the ecology within the site or that any mitigation has been proposed, and it does not propose notable ecological enhancement. As such, the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy CS11 F and G of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015).
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, 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).
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.