Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.All habitable rooms to Flat 5 are served by two windows which face southwards onto Row 85. This provides just a 1.5 metre gap between the windows and the three storey building opposite (No.164 King Street). This means that the kitchen/living room and bedroom of Flat 5 are not served with sufficient natural light and there is severely restricted outlook from these rooms. This contributes to an oppressive living environment which does not provide adequate amenity for residents. The application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A1, Section BD4 of the Design Code (2024), Emerging Local Plan Policy HEC7 and NPPF Paragrpah 135(f).
2.The proposed insertion of two roller garage doors would provide an unattractive and car dominated west elevation at ground floor level. These roller shutter doers fail to provide rhythm or interest to the ground floor and the increase in the number of roller shutter doors is also considered harmful because they are not a feature which is appropriate for the surrounding historic environment. These changes to the west elevation are considered to exacerbate the harm that the existing building causes to the special character and appearance to the Conservation Area and this is considered to be 'less than substantial harm' and is not offset by any public benefits. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS9 and CS10, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies A2 and E5, NPPF Paragraphs 135, 213 and 215, Sections BF1, CI2 and CI4 of the Design Code (2024), Emerging Local Plan Policies DHE1, DHE2 and DHE4 and the requirements of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 are not met.
3.The proposal includes the addition of 2 garage vehicle parking spaces under proposed Flat 6. The application is not supported by any information to demonstrate whether these garage spaces would be for the use of the occupants of Flat 6, or any other flats within the development or are unrelated. Without information confirming this, it is not possible for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that occupants of Flat 6 would not be affected by adverse levels of noise and disturbances coming from vehicles using the garages or the opening of the roller shutter doors and nor has any information been provided with the application to suggest that any noise impact associated with the use of the garages could be satisfactorily mitigated or that any resultant noise level associated with their use does not require mitigation. In the absence of such details the application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9 Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies E6 and A1, Emerging Local Plan Policy HEC7 and NPPF Paragraph 135(f).
4.The bin storage indicated on the ground floor is considered to be insufficient in size and not practical in layout and unlikely to be able to accommodate the number of bins required to serve the proposed 10 flats within the building. The result of this will be that the bins, or some of them will continue to be stored on the street which has a detrimental impact on the street scene, character of the area and has a harmful impact on the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal fails therefore to provide suitable bin storage provision which is discrete, visually attractive and user friendly. The application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS9 and CS10, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies E5 and A2, Sections CI2 and BD7 of the Design Code (2024) and Emerging Local Plan Policies DHE1, DHE2 and DHE4 and NPPF Paragraphs 135, 213 and 215.
5.The application seeks to regularise the windows on the southern elevation which are side hung and open outwards over Row 85. By being located on the ground floor and opening outwards over the pedestrian path these windows when open would create a physical obstruction and a hazard to users of Row 85, including cyclists as they are below the recommended minimum of 2.5m vertical clearance above pavement level . This directly affects the use of this public thoroughfare creating a hazard and safety issue and the application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS16.
6.The application site is located within the orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by an up-to-date shadow template Habitats Regulations Assessment, 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). Moreover, the application is not supported by the required financial mitigation to offset any in-combination impacts on designated ecological sites. 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 mitigation suggested is sufficient to address the impacts of the development. Therefore, the application is contrary to the Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11 Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies GSP5 and GSP8 and does not comply with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
7.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 Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS15 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies H4 and GSP5.
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. 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.