| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | By virtue of its scale, the proposed annexe is not considered to offer an ancillary form of accommodation to the main dwelling. The annex fails to appear subordinate to the main dwelling due to the intensity of the proposed use, and in terms of its use and appearance the proposed unit of accommodation would be tantamount to creating an independent dwelling within the site, evidenced by the fact that the accommodation would provide its own kitchen and living facilities along with a separate bedroom and bathroom. As such, the annex would be capable of providing independent accommodation separate to the main dwelling, without functional links, and therefore would fail be an ancillary use, or be subordinate in scale or intensity of use, to the principal dwelling, as is required to be considered an annexe. The proposal would therefore be considered to be contrary to policy H10 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021). |
| 2. | The application site is located within 30 metres of the Coastal Change Management Area defined by policy GSP4 and proposes new permanent development. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would be safe from coastal erosion for its lifetime and nor has it been demonstrated as part of this application that the proposal would not increase the risk of coastal erosion to both to the site or to neighbouring properties. The application therefore fails to comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS13 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy GSP4. |
| 3. | Due to the size of the proposed building being analogous to an independent bungalow, the annexe building would be out of keeping with the surrounding built form and would read as an additional dwelling squeezed between the host property and the boundary. This resulting cramped form of development would be contrary to the prevailing character of development whereby dwellings are set within similar sized plots with reasonable spacing between them. The proposal would therefore be considered to be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies H10 and H9, Sections CI1 and BF1 of the Great Yarmouth Design Code (2024) and Paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) |
| 4. | The application site is located within the Red 400m Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by the required £304.17 GIRAMS contribution, which is 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 (2021) GSP5 and GSP8 which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development. |
| 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. |
