| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The 7.5m length of the part of the extension beyond the rear wall of the two-storey gable extension, combined with the proposed width and the flat roof design introduces a large and alien structure highly visible from all houses within the row of terraces, and create an unduly overbearing and visibly intrusive structure for both adjoining neighbouring dwellings (No.72 and No.74 Suffield Road). The development would create an overbearing sense of enclosure and an unacceptable outlook for the occupiers
The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted policies CS09 of the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (2015) and policies H9(b) and A1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021), paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and is contrary to draft policies HOU11 and HEC 7 of the Emerging Local Plan (examination version 2026), to which significant weight should be afforded. |
| 2. | The proposed rear extension would disrupt the uniformity and character of the neighbouring properties and the design of the wider area, and would create an uncomfortable juxtaposition by introducing a large structure which is out of scale with, and unsympathetic to, the character of the local area. The appearance of the rear extension would be over-dominant in comparison to the existing dwelling, not appearing proportionate, subordinate or subservient to the host dwelling. Furthermore, the design of the Eastern elevation creates an unbroken expanse of dominant and repetitive brickwork further creating a sense of disproportion, and the large footprint proposed would disrupt the uniformity of all the rear gardens along Suffield Road which are characterised by being of similar size, shape and retained garden area.
This is contrary to adopted policies CS09 of the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (2015) and policy H9(a) of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021), as the proposal does not maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the wider design area or host dwelling and is contrary to paragraphs 131, 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and is contrary to draft policy HOU11 of the Emerging Local Plan (examination version 2026), to which significant weight should be afforded. When assessed against the adopted Borough-wide Design Code SPD policy CI1, the extension fails to meet the expected standard of being built with regard to local context due to its scale and footprint. |
| 3. | The development proposes that the existing rear elevation windows and doors, and Western ground floor windows of the host dwelling will be built over, and daylight to the proposed kitchen area and lobby will be achieved only by the roof lights proposed. This removes all exterior outlook from the ground floor area to the rear of the dwelling, aside from the proposed bedroom, which is unacceptable. This is in conflict with policy CS09 and policy A1 as the amenity of the current and future occupiers of the dwelling will be directly detrimentally affected by the removal of the windows and adequate outlook, and as a result the proposed design creates an oppressive internal arrangement constituting poor design.
The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS09 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2015) and policies H9, H9(b), and A1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021), paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and is contrary to draft policies HOU11 and HEC7 of the Emerging Local Plan (examination version 2026), to which significant weight should be afforded. |
| 4. | The remaining rear garden is proposed to have a size of approximately 46m² post development. As the application proposes an additional bedroom, the dwelling will become a three bedroom house. Three bedroom houses have a minimum outdoor private amenity space requirement of 75m² as per the Great Yarmouth Design Code. The overall design of the terraces incorporates a long rear garden for each dwelling. This extension proposes to take away over half the existing outdoor amenity space. The application fails to meet the amenity standard required and the amount of outdoor amenity space for the development is not suitable and is therefore contrary to the adopted Design Code and policies A1 and H9(c).
The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS09 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2015) and policies H9, H9(c), and A1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021), paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and is contrary to both the adopted Design Code SPD and the draft policies HOU11 and HEC7 of the Emerging Local Plan (examination version 2026), to which significant weight should be afforded. |
| 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. |
