| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal extends the row of the existing terrace which significantly transgresses the established building line of Somerville Avenue by extending the building line to within 2m of the eastern side boundary in contrast to the 7m set back which currently exists. This means the development creates a dominant feature on the streetscene which is exacerbated by presenting a blank frontage adjacent to the street edge and an inappropriate boundary treatment, and eroding the open nature of the existing site and character of the surrounding area. Thus the resultant form of development is incongruous within the street pattern and erodes the open nature of the T-junction. As such, the proposal would not be well-integrated within its context and would not relate well to the adjacent buildings or surrounding pattern of development, appearing inconsistent within the street scene and contributing to a sense of overdevelopment of the relatively constrained plot. As such the proposal conflicts with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy, A2 of the Local Plan Part 2, and the design principles of the NPPF and the adopted Great Yarmouth Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (2024). |
| 2. | The Open Space Needs Assessment (2022) and Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy (2022) identify open space deficits within the Magdalen Ward (in which the application site is located) for outdoor sports, play space, informal amenity and parks & gardens. A financial contribution of £2,534.86 would be required for two additional dwellings in order to mitigate the impacts of the development and ensure the development would be in accordance with policies CS14, CS15 of the Core Strategy and Policy H4 of Local Plan Part 2. |
| 3. | 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. |
