Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The application site is located within Flood Zone 3 and is therefore at high risk of flooding. The application proposes the conversion of the building and the change from a less vulnerable use to a more vulnerable use and the proposal includes the provision of habitable accommodation on the ground floor. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment shows that the building would flood internally by 0.59m in the 1 in 200 with climate change flood event. In the 1 in 1000 year plus climate change event the ground floor would flood by 1.27m. No suitable mitigation measures to address this increased flood risk are proposed. The proposal therefore represents an unacceptable increase in flood risk and represents a possible risk to both property and life. 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).
2.The proposal for a 3-bedroom dwelling would have limited outdoor amenity space with only a small 20sqm rear yard proposed. In addition to its compromised and cramped shape, this space would also be required to accommodate both bin and cycle storage which would further constrain its usability and the enjoyment of it for future residents. The limited outdoor space would fail to provide sufficient quantity and quality of amenity for future occupants and would contribute to an oppressive living environment. The application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies A1 and A2, Section BD6 of the Great Yarmouth Design Code, and Emerging Local Plan Policy DHE1, and is contrary to Paragraph 135 of the NPPF (December 2024).
3.Local Plan Part 2 Policy I3 states that surface water should only be discharged into the mains sewer in "limited circumstances where there are no feasible alternatives". The application form states that surface water would be discharged into the mains sewer but there is no supporting information with the application to demonstrate that the surface water drainage hierarchy has been explored and that infiltration-based solutions are not feasible as required by Core Strategy policy CS13(c), and therefore it has not been demonstrated that there are no feasible or preferable alternatives to discharging surface water into the mains or combined sewer network. The application has not sought to justify the proposal or explain that there are no feasible alternatives, nor demonstrated if there are separate surface water or combined foul and surface water networks at the site. As combined sewers are already at capacity and often flood, the proposal not only creates an increased risk of surface water but also could increase the risk of foul water flooding to the property and neighbouring dwellings, contrary to adopted policy I3. The proposal would also be contrary to emerging local plan policy CLC3 which brings forward similar considerations in respect of the drainage hierarchy. Furthermore, as the site has been a commercial yard for some time there may be contamination present, which infiltration could cause to leach into the groundwater. Any proposed surface water drainage strategy which relies on infiltration should be informed by both appropriate infiltration testing tp demonstrate that infiltration is suitable, and ground contamination surveys to ensure there is no risk to groundwaters. The application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) policy CS13(c), Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies I3 and E6, and Emerging Local Plan Policy CLC3.
4.The site has potential to provide habitat conducive to bats and other species within the building's roof space, especially so given its age and prolonged period of vacancy. The application does not include any information to establish the existing ecological baseline conditions at the site or demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on ecology, in particular that of protected species, and the application has not included any mitigation proposed or notable biodiversity or ecological enhancement measures. As such, the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11.
5.The proposed dwelling's garden would be located within an area which currently forms part of the commercial yard. Given the historic uses of the site, there is potential that contamination could be present. No information has been provided in support of the application to demonstrate that the proposed gardens would be safe from contamination, or that if any contamination is present it could be appropriately remediated and made safe for future residential use. Furthermore, a potential presence of contamination could present a risk to groundwaters if construction released contaminants from the ground or mobilised them through infiltration. As such the application has not demonstrated suitable residential amenity or protection of groundwater resources, contrary to Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies A1 and E6, and Emerging Local Plan Policies HEC6 and HEC5.
6.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 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy H4 and Emerging Local Plan Policy HEC2.
7.It is noted that the development proposes a residential use in a highly sustainable location and would bring back into use a vacant building and derelict brownfield land where developments should be supported under the NPPF unless there is substantial harm from approving the development. However, the cumulative impacts of the risk from flooding, the risk of causing increased flooding by the development, the unacceptable residential amenity and the risks from contamination are all considered to amount to substantial harm to future residents which outweighs the benefits of brownfield site redevelopment in this particular instance, particularly so given the Council can demonstrate an up-to-date local plan and in excess of 5 years of housing land supply.
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.
9.Advisory Note - HRA and GIRAMS: It is hereby acknowledged that the application has been accompanied by the appropriate template Habitats Regulations Assessment form and necessary financial contributions for GIRAMS Habitat Impacts Mitigation amounting to £304.17 received 09/02/2026.