| 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. Moreover, the extension proposed constitutes an increase in floor space of circa 30% meaning that the proposal is considered to go beyond what can reasonably be considered to be a conversion. 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 application is not supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the buildings do not support the presence of bats or bat roost and the Preliminary Ecological Assessment confirms that at least two further surveys are required to establish this. Therefore, there is insufficient information submitted with the application to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an impact on protected species (bats) as required by policy CS11 of the Core strategy and policy H7 of the Local Plan Part 2. |
| 4. | 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). |
| 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. |
