| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | Core Strategy Policy CS17 seeks to transform Great Yarmouth's arrival experience by developing a network of attractive, vibrant and well-connected neighbourhoods to create a new gateway to the town and to create strong urban form with distinctive high quality architecture of an appropriate scale, form and massing that complements the surrounding historic environment. The building is sited at one of the key gateways to the town, adjacent Great Yarmouth Rail Station, but a is of poor design, utilitarian, unattractive and an awkwardly positioned building.
The proposal offers an opportunity to respond to the buildings existing poor qualities of form and appearance as outlined above and to enhance its prominent setting and location through an improved quality of materials and building design but has failed to do so for the following reasons.
The changes to the exterior are minimal and would not greatly improve the appearance of the building, are not considered to be of a high standard and would mean that the building would continue to detract from the arrival experience into the town. As such, the proposal would therefore prejudice the overall regeneration ambitions for the area and the proposal fails to comply with the aims of Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS9 and CS17 and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) - Achieving well-designed places. |
| 2. | The application includes the provision of a retail unit on the ground floor. No changes are proposed on the southernmost facing elevation facing towards the town to make it clear to passers by that the building contains a retail unit and likewise no fasica is proposed to the restaurant/takeaway unit. The lack of active frontages to the public realm and lack of appropriate features on the building would frustrate legibility and would further exacerbate the poor design of the building. The proposal would fail to comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS9 and CS17, The Great Yarmouth Design Guide (2024) Sections CI4 and BD1, Section 7 of The Great Yarmouth Shopfront Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2022) and should also be refused in line with Paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024). |
| 3. | The bin storage area is proposed to be in a highly prominent position, in close proximity to the entrance to the retail unit, and no enclosure is proposed. This is not considered to represent an appropriate location for bin storage, especially when considering the commercial nature of the waste likely to be generated and lack of screening and/or odour control. The positioning of the bin storage area would harm visual amenity, potentially generate odorous impacts and undermine the ambitions to improve the arrival experience into the town. As such, the proposal fails to comply with the aims of Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS9 and CS17 The Great Yarmouth Design Guide (2024) Section BD7. |
| 4. | Given the proposed restaurant/takeaway use, it is likely that some form of external extract / ventilation will be required. No details of this have been provided as part of this application and given the proximity to the nearby Grade II Listed Vauxhall Bridge and the Market Place, Rows and North Quay Extension Conservation Area, it is likely that any external means of extraction could have a harmful impact on the setting of these designated heritage assets.
The application is also not supported by an historic impact assessment. In the absence of all these details and supporting information, the LPA cannot be certain that the proposal would not generate harm to the nearby designated heritage assets. The application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS10, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E5 and Paragraph 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024). |
| 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. |
