Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.Core Strategy Policy CS1(f) supports proposals which achieve high quality urban design that reflects positive local characteristics. Core Strategy Policy CS9 builds upon this and expects that development responds to, and draws inspiration from the surrounding area's distinctive natural, built and historic characteristics, such as scale, form, massing and materials, to ensure that the full potential of the development site is realised, making efficient use of land and reinforcing the local identity. Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2 adds detail for the housing design expectations within the Borough and along with Sections CI1, CI3 and BF1 of the Great Yarmouth Design Code expects that development is an appropriate form and scale which appropriately integrates within its context. Core Strategy Policy CS17 expects development within the Water Front Regeneration Area to be high quality. The scale, massing and overall design of the proposal does not adequately respond to the prevailing context of predominantly small-scale industrial units and 1-2 storey dwellings in the vicinity and would present a substantial and dominant block directly on the North River Road frontage. The proposed elevations lack sufficient relief and interest to mitigate their scale. The result is a building which would appear overbearing, be visually intrusive and result in harm to the street scene and setting of The Broads Authority Executive Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS1, CS9, CS11 and CS17, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, Sections CI1, CI3 and BF1 of the Design Code (2024), Emerging Policy DHE1 and NPPF (December 2024) Paragraphs 135 and 189 and engages Paragraph 139.
2.Core Strategy Policy CS9 expects development to draw inspiration from the surrounding characteristics. Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2 along with Sections CI1, CI3, CI4 and BF1 of the Design Code expects that development draws inspiration from the surrounding built environment, including character, form, and use of appropriate materials to ensure that development positively contributes to the sense of place. The surrounding area is defined by a general prevalence of light industrial buildings mainly constructed out of traditional materials of red brick and pitched roofs. The use of render, horizontal boarding and engineering bricks would not appropriately reference the surrounding built environment creating harm to the character and appearance of the area which is exacerbated by the scale and mass of the building and its angular and flat roof, and the largely flat facade treatments. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS1, CS9 and CS17, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, Sections CI1, CI3, CI4 and BF1 of the Design Code (2024), Emerging Policy DHE1 and NPPF (December 2024) Paragraph 135 and engages Paragraph 139.
3.Core Strategy Policy CS9 expects new development to achieve high quality design. One of the good housing design principles that Policy A2 expects is for buildings to have active frontages and for there to be a good relationship between the buildings, landscape features and the street. Sections CC6 and BD1 of the Design Code set how active ground floors can be achieved in areas at high risk from flooding. The proposal would have a non-active and overly car dominated ground floor, devoid of features to provide interest or rhythm with service doors and the main entrance to the building failing mitigate for the largely blank frontage. This is not considered to be good design and would mean that the building would have a poor relationship with the street and contributes to the overall unacceptable design of the building. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS1, CS9 and CS17, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, Sections CC6 and BD1 of the Design Code (2024), Emerging Policy DHE1 and NPPF (December 2024) Paragraph 135 and engages Paragraph 139.
4.Core Strategy Policy CS10 seeks to conserve and enhance the significance of the borough's heritage assets and their settings, an approach reiterated by Policy E5 and Section CI2 of the Design Code. Due to the height of the proposal it would be located within the setting of the North West Tower of the Town Wall - an Ancient Schedule Monument. The proposal, by virtue of its height, massing, and lack of local distinctiveness would have a harmful impact on the setting of North West Tower of the Town Wall. The building would be visible in views across the river from the moment and also in views of the monument (particularly from Fullers Hill looking north), detracting from the significance of the setting of the Tower. The proposal would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the heritage asset. This harm is considered to be less than substantial, and the proposal does not result in public benefits which would outweigh this harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS10, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E5, Section CI2 of the Design Code (2024), Emerging Policy DHE2 and Paragraphs 207, 213 and 215 of the NPPF (December 2024).
5.The proposal is considered to generate a level of harm to the setting of The Broads Authority Executive Area due to the height and scale of the proposal and lack of reference to the surrounding character and poor relationship with the River Bure. The development is therefore considered to be in conflict with Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS11 and CS17, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies GSP6 and E4, NPPF Paragraph 189 (December 2024) , Emerging Local Plan Policy NAT6 and is contrary to the Protected Landscapes Duty of Section 245 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.
6.Core Strategy Policy CS9 expects that new development does not have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. Similarly, Policy A1 expects that neighbouring amenity is protected. The erection of a 4 storey tall building in such close proximity to no.21 North River Road, would have an unacceptable, significant impact on the amenity of occupiers of no.21 North River Road, resulting in an overbearing sense of enclosure, restricting the use of their garden and limiting outlook. The proposal would therefore not comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A1 or with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and Emerging Local Plan Policies DHE1 and HEC7.
7.Core Strategy Policy CS9 expects that future residents are afforded high levels of amenity. Policy A1 has similar expectations. Whilst the internal floor each of each flat is acceptable, the occupants of the flats would not have access to outdoor space, with the 'drying area' not considered to a space of high enough quality to meet the needs to future residents and the flats do not have balconies which would afford residents with some private space and also help to provide a degree of interest and articulation to the elevations. The result is an inadequate living environment whereby residents would likely feel cramped due to the lack of outdoor amenity space. The proposal would therefore not comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A1 or with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and Emerging Local Plan Policies DHE1 and HEC7.
8.The site is located within Flood Zone 3 and therefore at high risk of flooding. Whilst the development is considered able to satisfy the flood risk Sequential Test (by virtue of being within the area allocated for residential-led regeneration through policy CS17) it must nevertheless also pass the flood risk Exception Test. To pass the Exception Test, the development must offer demonstrable sustainability benefits and ensure that the development is safe for its lifetime and does not worsen flood risk elsewhere. Whilst the flats would be safe from flooding (in terms of flood levels and internal flooding to units) the scheme is not considered to provide sufficient benefits to outweigh the flood risk identified (for example, no affordable housing is proposed to offer public benefits, or enhancing the quality of the urban environment, or providing other regeneration benefits which are expectations of the regeneration policy CS17). The Exception Test cannot therefore be considered to be passed. As such, the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy (2015) CS13, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E1 and Emerging Local Plan Policy CLC2, and contrary to the approach of NPPF (December 2024) Paragraphs 178 and 179.
9.The application site is located within the Orange 400m - 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone but the application is not supported by the required £4,258.38 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 cannot fully assess the additional impact upon the designated sites within the Borough without satisfaction that the required mitigation would be provided. Consequently, the application is contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies GSP5 and GSP8 and Emerging Local Plan Policy NAT4 and cannot be said to avoid a likely significant effect on designated sites so is not able to comply with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
10.The proposal does not address the public open space demands of the development, whether by on-site provision or through means to secure financial contributions towards off-site provision, as required by adopted Local Plan Part 2 policy H4. It has not been demonstrated that it is otherwise unviable to do so, nor that there is a surplus of open space within the ward rendering the requirement unnecessary. As such, the impacts of the development and the pressures the development places on public open spaces have not been mitigated and the proposal is contrary to policy H4 and the application fails to comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS14 and CS15, Local Plan Part 2 Policy GSP8 or Emerging Local Plan Policy HEC2.
11.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.