| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The rear extension is considered to be poor in design terms, with the intersection of the flat roof above the eaves for the main dwelling, along with the contrasting use of render on external elevations thereby creating a visually jarring and unattractive addition to the property which is not in keeping with the surroundings in terms of form, appearance or use of materials. Due to the change in ground levels within the rear curtilage and that of adjoining properties, this is especially noticeable from neighbouring gardens thereby harming their visual amenity and outlook and detracting from the surrounding character. The application therefore fails to comply with Core Policy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy H9, NPPF Paragraph 135 and the principles of the Great Yarmouth Design Code (2024) |
| 2. | The verandah as installed creates unacceptable potential for overlooking into neighbouring gardens due to its elevated vantage point. This creates conditions harmful to neighbouring amenity and limits the neighbours' ability to enjoy their own private gardens and in some cases gives rise to overlooking or their own inner rooms. This is contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies H9 and A1 and NPPF Paragraph 135. |
| 3. | The proposed submitted plans are not of a detail or accuracy to be able to form an accurate assessment on the impacts of the proposed hipped roof to the garage in terms of visual amenity and impact on the character and appearance of the area. Moreover, the plans are not of a quality where the Local Planning could be certain that the development would be able to be built in accordance with the approved plans as there are conflicting measurements in terms of height and this contributes to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposals. |
| 4. | 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. |
