| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County highway. This results in insufficient inter-visibility between vehicles emerging from the access and those travelling along the adjoining highway, including non-motorised users. Consequently, the proposal would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the public highway due to the restricted ability of drivers to see and be seen when joining the carriageway. Visibility splays are a fundamental aspect of highway safety, ensuring drivers and other road users have adequate sight lines to react appropriately to potential conflicts. The development, as constructed, fails to provide adequate visibility splays in accordance with the required standards and therefore does not provide a safe or suitable access. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS16 and emerging local plan policy SUT1 (to which significant weight can be afforded), which both similarly seek to ensure development proposals provide safe and suitable access for all and do not compromise highway safety. |
| 2. | The proposal involves the retrospective erection of a structures including fencing and brick piers, on land forming part of the public highway. These structures enclose and obstruct land vested as public highway, thereby hindering the rights of the public to pass and repass freely. The obstruction also endangers the satisfactory functioning of the local highway network by forcing pedestrians to walk within the live carriageway with no safe refuge. These structures are not permitted on highway land, The proposal therefore represents an unacceptable encroachment onto the public highway, to the detriment of public safety and convenience. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS16and emerging local plan policy SUT1 (to which significant weight can be afforded) , which similarly seek to ensure that development proposals safeguard the public highway and do not compromise the safety or function of the transport network. |
| 3. | The proposed fencing would disrupt the uniformity and character of the neighbouring properties which have low profile brick wall frontages, therefore the development creates a juxtaposition by introducing a large structure, which is out of scale, and unsympathetic to the wider area. The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted policies CS09 of the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (2015) and policies H9(b) and A1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021), paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and is contrary to draft policies HOU11 and HEC 7 of the Emerging Local Plan (examination version 2026), to which significant weight should be afforded. |
| 4. | 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. |
