Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The site is located in an unsustainable location remote from schooling, town centre shopping, health provision, and has restricted employment opportunities with limited scope for improving access by foot and public transport. The distance and conditions of travel and access to the nearest service centre provision precludes any realistic opportunity of encouraging a modal shift away from the private car towards public transport, cycling or walking. Therefore the site is not located to minimise the need to travel and is not in a sustainable location for new development. The statement that this would be a self- or custom-build dwelling does not offer sufficient benefits to outweigh the significant conflict with the development plan. As a result, the proposed development conflicts with the aims of sustainable development and does not satisfy the requirements of Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and Policy GSP1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
2.The proposed form, layout, scale and material palette of the proposed dwelling would result in a dwelling which would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The scale of the proposed dwelling means that it has had to be orientated to face away from the highway creating a detached relationship from Mill Road and a form of development contrary to the prevailing built form of Mill Road where dwellings tend to front the road with gardens to the rear. The design of the dwelling is not considered to be reflective of or complementary to the surrounding character and the proposed dwelling would appear alien within the surrounding context, and by being of a form which contrasts to its neighbour, would further increase the sense of alien development sited alongside the emerging dwelling to the south. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, NPPF Paragraphs 135 and 139 and the Great Yarmouth Design Code.
3.The erection of a dwelling on the 0.12 hectare site would result in a density of 8.3 dwellings per hectare which represents a significant shortfall from the requirements of Policy H3 which would expect a net minimum density of 20 dwellings per hectare for developments within Burgh Castle, and therefore represents a less dense form of development compared to the surrounding area. The proposal fails to make efficient use of the land and therefore fails to comply with the adopted Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS09 (2015) adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy H3, National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 128, and the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (adopted January 2024).
4.The application form states that the development would include 'fencing' the proposed boundary treatments, but no detail has been provided as to the positioning and type of fencing proposed which is considered unacceptable for the position of the development and its rural appearance. It is considered that there has been insufficient detail provided as to the proposed boundary treatment, and it is considered that there has not been sufficient clarity to detail that the proposed boundary treatments would not have a harmful urbanising impact on this rural part of Burgh Castle. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2 and the Great Yarmouth Design Code.
5.The application site is located within the orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by an up-to-date shadow template Habitats Regulations Assessment or the required GIRAMS contribution of £221.17 required for this development to mitigate any impact on designated sites through increased recreational pressures, which are both 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).
6.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, which is considered unacceptable for development in a part of the Borough where there is an identified deficit of public open space, causing residential development to lack the appropriate facilities required in the vicinity. 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).
7.The application has not demonstrated that the proposal should be exempt from the requirements of providing Biodiversity Net Gain, as it is considered insufficient to rely on the description of development of a self-build dwelling on its own without there being a guarantee of a self-build dwelling being delivered through planning obligations being secured by legal agreement . Therefore, as the baseline ecological conditions on the site have not been assessed and quantified, and no measures have been presented to secure at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value on the site, the development does not meet the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021).
8.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.