Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The site is located within an area at risk of flooding by the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2017) and the application has not been supported by a Flood Risk Assessment. In addition, a Sequential Test has not been submitted as part of the application to identify and discount alternative sites for the development demonstrating that there are no suitable alternative available sites within the borough of Great Yarmouth that could accommodate the modest scale of growth proposed in areas at lower risk of flooding. Furthermore, the Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an adequate supply of deliverable housing sites and does not rely on provision of new windfall sites to maintain this supply. As such, the proposal is contrary to the Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS13 and the Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E1 (2021), and is contrary to the approach of NPPF (December 2024) (in particular Paragraphs 173-176).
2.The erection of a dwelling within the garden of 1 Garfield Villa would result in a form of development which would be cramped and confined and be out of keeping with the surrounding character and appearance of the area. This resultant overdevelopment of the plot therefore means that the application fails to comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS1 and CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, and Sections CI1 and BF1 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (adopted January 2024), and is contrary to Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (December 2024).
3.The erection of a dwelling within the garden of 1 Garfield Villa and the subsequent overdevelopment of the site would deprive the donor dwelling of an adequate and enjoyable outdoor amenity space. The resulting space would be small, confined and be subject to near constant overshadowing from both the donor dwelling and the proposed new dwelling. This would result in an oppressive environment for residents and be significantly detrimental to their amenity. The available parking, turning and manoeuvring space remaining available for the donor dwelling would be severely compromised and this adds to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposal. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, Sections SM5, BD4 and BD6 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (adopted January 2024), and is contrary to Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (December 2024).
4.Garfield Terrace is a single lane, unmade track without any passing spaces which is considered unsuitable to accommodate further development. The erection of an additional dwelling would increase the pressure on this track and would increase the likelihood of further vehicle conflicts, especially when considering the near 100 metre section without any passing spaces and could result in vehicles having to reverse back out onto Yarmouth Road. This contributes to the unsatisfactory form of development proposed. The proposal is contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS16.
5.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. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS14 and CS15 and Policies GSP8 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy H4.
6.The application has not demonstrated that the proposal should be exempt from the requirements of providing Biodiversity Net Gain, as it is considered that the site contained sufficient habitat to trigger the requirement to provide Biodiversity Net Gain on the day on which Schedule 7A came into force . 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).
7.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.