Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.1) In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary for the works to facilitate the conversion to be reasonably necessary to make the building habitable. Considering the large open frontage (west elevation) to the 'Biomass Building' it is considered that the proposed works to enclose this involving the erection of a new wall and the likely strengthening of existing walls which would go beyond that which can be considered a conversion. The building would not be capable of habitation without these building works taking place. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with Q.1(j)(i) of Part 3, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
2.2) In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary for any works of demolition to be limited to partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(j)(i). To facilitate the extensions to the 'Biomass Building' part of the adjacent agricultural building is proposed to be demolished. However, the extent of demolition has not been fully demonstrated. It is therefore considered that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that demolition works proposed would not go beyond what is reasonably necessary to facilitate the conversion of the buildings. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with Q.1(j)(ii) of Part 3, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
3.3) In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary for the existing building, excluding any proposed extension under Class Q(b) but including any proposed building operations under Class Q(c), to be capable of complying with the nationally described space standard issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 27th March 2015. Dwellings 1 and 4 within the 'Cold Store Building' would not be capable of complying with nationally described space standards for the size of dwellings which are being proposed without the building first being extended. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with Q.1 (o) of Part 3, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
4.4) In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary to demonstrate whether or not the contamination risks arising from the development are acceptable. The supporting statement claims that the external materials of the buildings would be repaired and retained where necessary. Both the 'Cold Store' and 'Main Storage Building' both contain asbestos in the walls/roof the buildings and this is not detailed how risks arising from this would be dealt with especially given the need to cut into this to create window and door openings. Therefore, it is considered that insufficient information has been received with regards to contamination and the proposal fails to comply with Q.2 1-(c).
5.5) In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary to demonstrate whether or not the flood risks arising from the development are acceptable. The application site is located partially within Flood Zone 2 and part of the 'Main Storage Building' is located within Flood Zone 2. The dwellings proposed within this building contain bedrooms on the ground floor. The application is not supported by a Flood Risk Assessment and therefore the risks resulting from flooding on the site cannot be fully assessed and the development cannot be considered to be safe for the lifetime of the development. The proposal fails to comply with Q.2 1-(d).
6.(6) In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary to demonstrate whether or not location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a residential use. The proposed dwellings are located within a working farm. Whilst it is recognised that the farm is currently used as a berry farm, there are no restrictions which would prevent the retained farm use being continued, a more intensive agricultural use or another use within the interpretation of agriculture. Future residents would therefore likely be subject to significant levels of noise and disturbances. Furthermore, the surrounding silos, glasshouses, agricultural buildings and static caravans are not considered to be conducive to a high-quality living environment. It is not considered that the siting of the dwellings is suitable for residential development and proposal fails to comply with Q.2 1-(e).
7.7) In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary to demonstrate whether or not location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a residential use. No parking provision is shown to serve the dwellings. Considering the unsustainable location of the application site it is considered highly likely that residents would be near totally reliant on the private car. As such, parking is likely to be dispersed around the retained farm, potentially compromising the activities on the site and causing a potential safety concern. The proposal fails to comply with Q.2 1-(e).
8.n order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary to demonstrate whether or not the design or external appearance of the dwelling is acceptable. The proposal seeks to retain the external materials, replacing or repairing where necessary. The applicant's supporting statement would therefore indicate that this includes the retention of the asbestos sheeting on both the 'Cold Store Building' and 'Main Storage Building'. This would not be acceptable as asbestos is a banned material and therefore it is considered that insufficient information has been provided with respect to the external appearance of the dwellings. The proposal fails to comply with Q.2 1-(f).
9.9) In order for such a proposal to be granted Prior Approval, it is necessary to demonstrate whether or not there would be any adverse impacts upon ecology. Due to the age of the buildings, their existing use, opening and location in proximity to open fields, hedgerows and trees which indicate the possibility of protected species their presence should be ruled out or shown to be able to be mitigated. No assessment has been submitted in support of the application demonstrating the buildings' likely habitat potential. As a result, insufficient information has been provided and the proposal fails to comply with W.(10)(b) of Part 3, Class Q of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended).
10.10) The application site is located within the Orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by a shadow template Habitats Regulations Assessment or financial mitigation which are 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) and to fully assess the impacts of the proposal on designated ecological sites through recreational pressures, hydrological links or air quality, and to conclude the correct form of mitigation to offset any impacts. Without an HRA, the Local Planning Authority cannot fully assess the additional impact, in terms of indirect and direct impacts upon the designated sites within the Borough or confirm that the mitigation provided is adequate. As a result, the application is contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 which seek to avoid or mitigate the cumulative potential adverse impacts to designated sites arising from development.
11.11) The application proposes a Package Treatment Plant for foul water and whilst this is shown on land within the ownership of the applicant (within land edged in blue on the site location map) this is located outside of the application site boundary edged in red on the site location plan. There is no mechanism provided to secure this for the lifetime of the development and the works would otherwise not be acceptable without this secured. Therefore, as the works would be outside of the red line boundary, it would consist of development which goes beyond what is allowed under Q.1.
12.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.