Great Yarmouth Borough Council

No.	Condition Text
1.	The proposed development is located on land designated as safeguarded employment land under Policy CS6 of the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy. The proposal does not constitute an employment-generating use, as it would not provide on-site jobs during its operational phase and does not provide a support function to existing or planned development within the designated employment area. Furthermore, the application fails to meet the criteria for alternative uses to be considered favourably within safeguarded employment areas as set out in Policy CS6(b), notably lacking adequate evidence of prior marketing of the site for the purposes designated in the local plan and lacking evidence of there being no commercial interest in the site for employment purposes. The application fails to demonstrate that the development must be located in this specific site or that there are no other more sequentially-appropriate locations available. As such, the proposal would result in the long-term loss of safeguarded employment land, and is considered contrary to Policy CS6 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015), and is contrary to submission-stage policies EMP1, EMP2 and Appendix 2 of the Emerging Local Plan which should be afforded substantial weight as a material consideration, and is contrary to the objectives of protecting local, regional and nationally strategic employment land as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
2.	The application site lies within the designated Great Yarmouth Port and Harbour Area, where Policy GY10 of the Local Plan Part 2 seeks to reserve land for port-related activities, including maritime transport, storage, industrial and office uses, and small-scale ancillary uses. The proposed battery storage facility does not constitute a port-related development, nor does it demonstrate a direct and essential link to the offshore energy industry, or other port operations. The application fails to provide sufficient evidence that the development is compatible with the long-term availability and adequacy of port-related land, which is considered particularly important given the site's strategic river port-side location and the requirement in policy to ensure quays and land adjacent to them will remain available for port-related surface storage and the ability to serve vehicles moored at the quayside. The proposal would therefore undermine the strategic function of the Port and Harbour Area and result in the loss of land that should be safeguarded for port-related uses. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to adopted Policy GY10 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework. It is also important to note that the development is also contrary to the objectives for the site to continue to be expressly protected as a Port and Harbour Areas as set out in the submission-stage policy URB16 of the Emerging Local Plan (which is based on the most up-to-date available evidence base to still remain locally and regionally important), which should be afforded moderate weight as a material consideration.
3.	The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a, an area of high risk of tidal flooding, and the proposed development is classified as 'essential infrastructure'. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Core Strategy Policy CS13, and Local Plan Part 2 Policy E1, such development must pass both the Sequential and Exception Tests and be supported by a robust site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The submitted FRA fails to demonstrate that the development would be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Specifically: · The Sequential Test has not been fulfilled and the requirements are inadequately addressed, with no meaningful assessment of the possibilities of directing the development to alternative sites in areas of lower flood risk; · The FRA lacks critical information, including finished floor levels, a safe access and egress route, and a robust Emergency Flood Plan; · The development has not proven itself to be safe in the event of flooding in particular during a 1-in-200-year flood event with climate change, and does not provide demonstrably safe access routes during flood events; · No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the site can remain operational and safe during flood events, as required for essential infrastructure. · The development fails to pass the Exception Test, as the collective environmental benefits of the development are not considered sufficient to outweigh the loss of specifically-protected employment land and potential for jobs creation and therefore are not considered to outweigh the flood risk, and the development is not proven to be safe for its lifetime, has not proven that it will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere, and has not proven that it will reduce flood risk overall. In the absence of this information, the proposal fails to comply with the NPPF, Policy CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015) and policy E1 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
4.	The development is not an employment development use, does not require a river port-side location and lacks a demonstrable operational need to be sited within this strategically significant area. The application fails to justify why the facility could not be located elsewhere in the borough, particularly in areas outside of safeguarded port and harbour areas, and other designated employment land. In the absence of sufficient material benefits that outweigh the harm of the sites location, and compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposed use must be located in this sensitive and strategically important location, the development is considered inappropriate and unable to provide sufficient justification to outweigh the conflict with the objectives of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which promote the efficient and sustainable use of land, as well as Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy, Policy GY10 of the Local Plan Part 2 and emerging Policies EMP2 and URB16.
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.