Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The site is located in an unsustainable location remote from town centre shopping and day-to-day services and has restricted employment opportunities with limited scope for improving access by foot and public transport. The distance and conditions of travel and access to the nearest service centre provision precludes any realistic opportunity of encouraging a modal shift away from the private car towards public transport, cycling or walking. Therefore the site is not located to minimise the need to travel and is not in a sustainable location for new development. As a result, the proposed development conflicts with the aims of sustainable development and does not satisfy the requirements of Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015), Policy GSP1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework and Chapter 5 of Norfolk's Local Transport Plan 4 Strategy 2021-2036.
2.The proposed development would intensify the use of an existing access on a stretch of classified highway which carries significant traffic movements, usually at speed. Development at this location does not offer the opportunity for people to travel more sustainably as the proposal does not provide high quality access to public transport / safe walking / cycling routes. The existence of an access in this location is a matter of fact and therefore some degree of conflict and interference to the passage of through vehicles already occurs, but the intensification of that interference which this proposal would engender would be detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS16.
3.The continuous front curtilage parking proposed to the east of the main farmhouse and in front of the large barns would result in a car-dominated environment which would be detrimental to character and appearance of the site and wider rural character. The proposal therefore is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, Section SM5 of the Great Yarmouth Design Code, Paragraph 139 of the NPPF and Emerging Local Plan Policy DHE1.
4.The gardens to units B2 and H2 whilst meeting the minimum size requirements of Section BD6 of the Design Code would be enclosed and be in near constant shadow creating an unwelcoming and overbearing areas of outdoor amenity space. The proposal therefore fails to provide sufficient amenity to future residents and the proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A1, Paragraph 135 of the NPPF and Emerging Local Plan Policy HEC7.
5.The proposed change of use to residential dwellings would entail the enclosure of the historic farmstead with new permanent boundary treatments and car parking and would also introduce additional activities, an increase in movement, visual clutter and domestic paraphernalia, which, taken together, will have a negative impact on the way in which the historic farmstead is experienced and appreciated as a unified composition. Notwithstanding the conversion, the proposed scheme would also result in the loss of historic fabric and planform (resulting primarily from the loss of brickwork and installation of a new glazed bay to the west elevation of the barn). The level of harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset is not considered to be acceptable and therefore the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS10, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E5, Section CI2 of the Great Yarmouth Design Code, NPPF Paragraph 216 and Emerging Local Plan Policy DHE2.
6.Unit B4 (the U shaped dwelling) is not shown to have any dedicated parking. Given the unsustainable location, lack of public transport options and likely near total reliance on the private cars residents of this dwelling would require dedicated parking for their own vehicles. The lack of dedicated parking could lead to vehicles blocking the public right of way or lead to conflict with neighbouring residents. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS16 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy I1.
7.The proposal has failed to address the public open space requirements generated by the development, either through on-site provision or a mechanism to secure financial contributions towards off-site provision. In the absence of a completed Section 106 Legal Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking, the pressures placed on public open space have not been mitigated. This is unacceptable in a ward where there is a formally identified deficit of public open space. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS14 and CS15, and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies GSP8 and H4.
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.