No. | Condition Text |
---|
1. | The limited size of the plot curtilages and the siting of the proposed dwellings and their parking arrangements leads to a cramped form of development that is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. The development form is at odds with the wider spatial character and urban grain where properties in the surrounding area have larger plot sizes and private rear gardens that are of a reasonable and more useable size. In particular, the northern most dwellings (plot nine) frontage is dominated by vehicle drive and hardstanding area with limited depth of rear curtilage which is not visually attractive, does not represent good layout and does not have a high standard of amenity for future users.
It is considered that the proposed dwellings would be a cramped form of development to the detriment of the amenity needs of future occupiers. The east boundary of the site is close to a row of protected trees. The proposed dwellings would have limited depth rear gardens which would suffer from an overbearing sense of enclosure, shading and a poor outlook. This would be likely to engender a desire to seek the removal of some of the protected trees (G1) or their limbs. This results in an unacceptable risk to the future retention of the on-site trees and their contribution to the character and appearance of the area.
It is therefore concluded that the development would not provide acceptable indoor and outdoor living conditions for future occupants.
The development, therefore, fails to respect the surrounding built character and form of the area. The proposal, therefore, fails to comply with the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9 and Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies A1 and A2 together with Paragraphs 131, 135, and 136, and engages paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) and Great Yarmouth Design Code SPD (2024) Policies BF1 and CI1. The development would also pose an unacceptable risk to the protected trees to the east, contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E4. |
2. | The application site is located within the Green 2.5km+ Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by an up-to-date shadow template Habitats Regulations Assessment nor the required £221.17 per dwelling 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) which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development. |
3. | The proposal has failed to address the public open space requirements of the development identified by the deficit of provision within the Ormesby Ward, 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). |
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. |