| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The concentration of communal spaces almost entirely within the basement, with only limited kitchen provision on the upper floors (9m² on the first floor and 14m² on the second floor), would result in shared facilities that are inaccessible and poorly distributed relative to the location of bedrooms, particularly those on the first and second floors. This would discourage use of communal areas, reduce social interaction, and create cramped, isolating, oppressive and substandard living conditions for residents. The development would therefore fail to provide an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupiers.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies A1 and H12, Emerging Local Plan Policies HEC7 and HOU7, and Paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024). |
| 2. | The application site is located within Flood Zone 2. The proposed change of use includes the net increase of 4no. bedrooms located at ground floor level. As an HMO these bedroom's will be the occupants sole personal living space, and will contain all their belongings.
The intensification of use of the property as an HMO in terms of the increased number of people that would be living there is considered by the Local Planning Authority to result in an increase in flood risk to occupants due to the additional provision of sleeping accommodation on the ground floor and there only being a limited provision of communal safe refuge area at first floor level or above. As the proposal includes sleeping accommodation on the ground floor there would be a potential danger of loss of life during a flood event . The mitigation outlined in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment of allowing water entry on the ground floor, adaptations to services and fittings, and relying entirely on a Family Flood Plan is not considered sufficient to mitigate this increased risk.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS13, Emerging Local Plan Policy CLC2 and Paragraphs 170 and 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024). |
| 3. | The application site is located within the orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and therefore has the potential to result in significant impacts on designated ecological sites through cumulative recreational pressures arising from new development. Whilst the application is 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) - 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 Emerging Local Plan Policy NAT4 and does not comply with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. |
| 4. | The proposal has failed to address the public open space requirements of the development, whether by on-site provision or through means to secure financial contributions towards off-site provision. As such, the impacts of the development and the pressures the development places on public open spaces have not been mitigated. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS14 and CS15 and Policies GSP8, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy H4 and Emerging Local Plan Policy HEC2. |
| 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. |
