Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The proposed dwelling would extend forward of the neighbouring property to the east, and present an inactive rear and side elevation to Bracon Road. As the site is limited in size and on a prominent corner, the development would appear cramped, and would have an awkward orientation and siting within the plot, and proposes an inappropriate choice of materials which would emphasise the incongruous development. The dwelling would abut the neighbouring property to the south (1 Rosedale Gardens) which is out of character to the surrounding area which features generous spaces in the streetscene between detached dwellings, and the development would have an awkward relationship with both Rosedale Gardens and Bracon Road. Furthermore, the development fails to provide adequate external amenity space for future residents, fails to provide adequate parking resulting in causing a hazard on the local highway network, and fails to demonstrate that it will be able to incorporate adequate on-site biodiversity gain in accordance with the principles of following the biodiversity gain hierarchy. 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 plot. As such the proposal conflicts with Policies CS9 and CS16 of the Core Strategy, Policies A2 and I1 of the Local Plan Part 2, Policy 5 of the Browston, Burgh Castle, and Fritton with St Olaves Neighbourhood Plan, Policies DHE1 and SUT2 of the Emerging Local Plan, and the design principles of the NPPF and the adopted Great Yarmouth Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (2024).
2.The proposed first floor bedroom window would be considered to cause overlooking of the front garden space of no.5 Rosedale Gardens, which currently provides a valued private amenity space to its occupants by virtue of the close boarded fencing surrounding the site. As such, the proposal conflicts with the aims of Policy CS09 of the Core Strategy, Policy A1 of the Local Plan Part 2 and Policy HEC7 of the Emerging Local Plan.
3.The site is located within the Orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitats Impact Zone and the prior approval application proposes the net increase of 1no. dwelling. As such a shadow template Habitat Regulation Assessment is required. Whislt a SHRA and completed S111 form have been received, these are not up-to-date, nor has the required £304.17 Green Infrastructure and Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy payment been made to the Local Planning Authority. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Policy GSP5 of the Local Plan Part 2 and Policy NAT4 of the Emerging Local Plan.
4.The Open Space Needs Assessment (2022) and Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy (2022) identify open space deficits within the Lothingland Ward (in which the application site is located) for outdoor sports, play space, informal amenity, allotments and parks & gardens. A financial contribution of £1,039.39 is required for the development to mitigate its impacts on public open space in the area and ensure the development would be in accordance with policies CS14 and CS15 of the Core Strategy, and Policy H4 of the Local Plan Part 2 and Policy HEC2 of the Emerging Local Plan.
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.