Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The application site is located within an area designated by Policy CS17 as safeguarded as employment land to serve offshore energy related businesses unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. No information has been submitted within this application to suggest that this land is not needed to serve the offshore industry and therefore the principle of residential development in this location has not been demonstrated to be acceptable. The application therefore does not comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS17.
2.By virtue of the unsympathetic form, massing, materials and the excessive bulk, the proposal is considered not to enhance its immediate setting and would appear incongruous and overly dominant in the street scene. The development does not draw inspiration from its immediate surroundings and the character of the built environment, particularly in its approach to materials and fenestration. The proposal would also fail to turn corners and the blank flank walls would be exacerbate the poor design. The proposal therefore is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2 and the expectations of the Great Yarmouth Design Code (2024).
3.The lack of activity on the ground floor along with the continuous front curtilage parking would result in a a car-dominated environment which would be detrimental to the street scene and character of the area. The proposal therefore is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2 and the expectations of the Great Yarmouth Design Code (2024).
4.The proposal includes Garden Rooms on the ground floor which are accessed internally from each house. These Garden Rooms are considered to analogous to a living room and is therefore considered to be a habitable room. The application site is located within Flood Zone 3 and therefore the habitable accommodation on the ground floor would provide an unacceptable flood risk; moreover, as the proposal could not be guaranteed to be safe for the life time of the development the proposal would fail to pass the Exception Test. The application therefore does not comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS13.
5.The application is supported by insufficient information to demonstrate the building's suitability for roosting, foraging/ or commuting bats. Therefore insufficient information has been provided to determine the impact on protected species on site. The application therefore does not comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11.
6.The application site is located within the Orange 400m-2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by the required 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 cannot fully assess the additional impact, in terms of indirect and direct impacts upon the 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) and the The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
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.The submitted Noise Impact Assessment (IEC Ltd. dated 16 April 2024) recommends numerous mitigation measures to offset the fact that the site is considered a 'medium risk' with regards to traffic noise and also that industrial noise may result in an adverse impact which could be significant. One of these measures is to remove the balconies from the scheme, but the balconies are still showing on the plans. Therefore, occupiers could still be subject to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbances. The proposal therefore is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2.
9.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.