Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The proposed development is located outside the defined Development Limits of Caister-on-Sea and within a designated Strategic Gap. The proposal represents an unjustified intrusion of major commercial built form into the open countryside, resulting in the coalescence of settlements and the loss of openness. The proposal further introduces main town centre uses into an out-of-centre location without robust sequential justification. The development is therefore contrary to adopted Policies CS2, CS6, and CS7 of the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (2015) and Policies GSP1, GSP3, and R1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), draft policies OSS3 and NAT8 of the Emerging Local Plan (Main Modifications version 2026), and the National Planning Policy Framework.
2.The proposed access arrangements conflict with the existing Pump Lane and Yarmouth Road junction, creating an unsafe highway environment. The excessive access widths and kerb radii, combined with a severe lack of safe pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, would encourage high vehicle speeds and endanger vulnerable road users. The proposal also fails to provide adequate parking and EV infrastructure in line with County standards. The development is therefore contrary to Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy (2015), Policy I1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), draft policies SUT1 and SUT2 of the Emerging Local Plan (Main Modifications version 2026), and Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3.The site is located within Flood Zone 3a, where the applicant has failed to demonstrate that safe access and egress can be achieved during an extreme flood event or that the buildings possess the required structural resilience to withstand floodwater pressures. Furthermore, the application lacks sufficient ground investigation and testing to prove that the proposed surface water drainage strategy (infiltration) is viable, and lacks a compliant SuDS treatment train. The proposal is contrary to Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy (2015), Policy E1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), draft policies CLC2, HEC5, and HEC6 of the Emerging Local Plan (Main Modifications version 2026), and Chapter 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4.The site is located over sensitive aquifers and a Water Framework Directive groundwater body. The applicant has provided insufficient information to demonstrate that the installation of underground storage tanks and associated commercial infrastructure (including jet wash overflows) would not pose an unacceptable pollution risk to groundwater resources, contrary to Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy (2015), Policy E6 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), draft policies CLC2, HEC5 and HEC6 of the Emerging Local Plan (Main Modifications version 2026), and Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
5.The applicant has failed to provide a Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment (sHRA), preventing the Local Planning Authority from concluding that the development would not result in likely significant effects on the National Site Network. The submitted Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) assessment is fundamentally flawed, omitting Very High distinctiveness Lowland Fen and demonstrating a massive net loss in biodiversity (-66.09%), thereby failing the statutory 10% BNG requirement. The proposal would also cause direct destruction and harm to active water vole habitats without a cohesive, integrated mitigation strategy, and lacks requisite emergence/re-entry bat surveys and Great Crested Newt licensing details. The development is contrary to Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy (2015), Policy GSP5 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, draft policies HEC5, HEC6, NAT1, NAT3 and NAT4 of the Emerging Local Plan (Main Modifications version 2026), and Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
6.The proposed layout sites commercial buildings and public areas in unacceptable proximity to an existing high-pressure gas pipeline, resulting in a sustained objection from the pipeline operator regarding severe risks to public safety. Additionally, the layout fails to respect existing strategic foul and water mains crossing the site, failing to demonstrate that necessary easements or diversions can be achieved. The proposal is contrary to Policies CS9(f) and CS14 of the Core Strategy (2015) and Policy E6 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), draft policies OSS4, HEC5 and DHE1 of the Emerging Local Plan (Main Modifications version 2026), and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7.The introduction of a sprawling commercial service area, expansive hardstanding, illuminated signage, and associated infrastructure into this edge-of-settlement location fails to respect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The proposal causes significant visual harm, obliterating the existing openness of the site and failing to integrate into its surroundings, contrary to Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy (2015), Policy GSP3 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), draft policies NAT8 and DHE1 of the Emerging Local Plan (Main Modifications version 2026), and Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
8.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, including accepting amended information and plans but these have not been sufficient to resolve the concerns identified. Unfortunately, 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.