| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal, for a mixed use of a pharmacy and storage and distribution centre, are uses generally considered to be more appropriate in areas identified for commercial use within the Local Plan. Policy CS1 advises that new development should be of a scale and in a location that complements the character of the settlement. The proposal does not make effective use of land and introduces a form of commercial development in a residential area which would constitute overdevelopment of this type of use. The scale of the proposed is too large to be considered akin to home working and would instead create a substantial commercial unit in a larger plot than previously approved. For these reasons the proposal would conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS1, CS6, Local Plan Part 2 and section 11 of the NPPF. |
| 2. | The existing building fails to positively contribute to the character or appearance of the area. The proposed enlargement, by more than doubling the scale of the building, would significantly increase its bulk and massing and introduce a prominent, functional external staircase. As a result, the development would exacerbate the building's already intrusive presence within the street scene.
Due to its increased scale, poor relationship with surrounding development, and utilitarian design, the proposal would neither respond to nor enhance the character of the area, resulting in an over dominant and visually harmful form of development.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS1 and CS9, which require development to respond positively to local character and achieve a high standard of design, and Local Plan Part 2 Policy A2, which seeks development that preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area. |
| 3. | The proposed use of the site as a mixed pharmacy and storage and distribution facility, together with the extension to the building, would result in an increase in staff, visitor, and servicing movements, leading to additional vehicular trips to and from the site. The development fails to provide any on-site car parking and does not comply with the Norfolk County Council Parking Standards.
Evidence indicates that unregulated parking already occurs in the vicinity of the site, including on grassed verges to the south of Baliol Road. The additional vehicular movements associated with the proposal would intensify this unregulated parking, increasing the likelihood of conflict between visitors and local residents and creating potential hazards for highway users as vehicles manoeuvre around improperly parked cars.
The proposal would therefore exacerbate parking pressure in the immediate area, encourage further unauthorised use of highway land and verge areas, and adversely affect highway safety. This harm is heightened by the absence of available on-street parking, with much of Middleton Road subject to double yellow line restrictions on both sides.
Furthermore, the site is not located within an area designated for commercial development and is not considered to be a sustainable location supported by existing or proposed transport infrastructure.
The development is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS9 and CS16 and Local Plan Part 2 Policies I1 and A1, which seek to ensure safe and convenient access, adequate parking provision, and development in sustainable locations that do not result in harm to highway safety or residential amenity. |
| 4. | The application has been submitted with an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) which identifies a group of trees to the west along the A47 (G1) and a single lime tree to the east (T1). The AIA fails to adequately assess the impact of the development upon G1. It also raises concerns about the compatibility of the proposal with T1, noting that it has already been reduced on the applicant's side due to the proximity with the existing building. Neither G1 nor T1 are within the applicant's ownership and there is no evidence of any proposed works having been discussed with the owner. The proposal fails to adequate assess or justify any harm to the trees and therefore the application fails to comply with Core Strategy Policies CS09 and CS11 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E4. |
| 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. |
