Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The application proposes new development outside of the development limits. The proposal therefore conflicts with the settlement strategy and development limits approach established through Policies OSS1, RUR1 and OSS3. Additionally, the proposal does not fall within any of the categories of development supported by NPPF Policy S5 and does not address an evidenced unmet need sufficient to justify a departure from the spatial strategy. The principle of development is therefore not considered to be established, and the proposal is contrary to NPPF Policies S3 and S5 and Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policies OSS1, RUR1 and OSS3.
2.The proposed scheme does not provide a sufficient diversity of dwelling types and mixes which fails to account for the housing demand in this part of the Borough identified in the Housing Needs Assessment (2022). No justification or evidence submitted to suggest why a more suitable and varied mix of dwelling types and sizes is not achievable. The proposal fails therefore to comply with Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policy HOU4 and Belton with Browston, Burgh Castle, and Fritton with St Olaves Neighbourhood Plan (2025) Policy 2.
3.The scheme only provides one affordable rent dwelling (plot 3). This falls significantly below the policy-compliant requirement of three affordable dwellings and this shortfall has not been justified through viability evidence in accordance with Policy OSS5. In the absence of a satisfactory viability justification, the shortfall in affordable housing provision is contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policy HOU1.
4.By virtue of the large footprints of the dwellings the proposal fails to realise the full development potential of the site and fails to make an efficient or effective use of land which is categorised as Grade 3 Agricultural Land. The proposal is contrary to NPPF Policy L3.
5.The proposed layout fails to integrate of existing natural features on the site and seeks to remove a significant number of trees (including two trees protected by TPO no.9 of 2020) and a significant length of native hedgerow. This approach is not considered justified, and the proposed layout has not been designed in a way to respond to the site's constraints. The proposal is therefore contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policies DHE1 and NAT10 and NPPF Policies DP3 and N2.
6.The proposal seeks the removal of the protected trees which are positioned prominently towards the front of the plot at Dovedale and play an important role in the visual amenity of the street scene and contribute towards the landscape character of the area where wooded skylines are key sensitives providing a sense of containment. The loss of these Category B trees would therefore cause harm to the character of the area and this loss could not be offset by replacement planting elsewhere on the site, which would be in a less prominent location and therefore not provide the same contribution to visual amenity and character as the existing trees provide. The proposal is therefore contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policy NAT10 and NPPF Policy N2.
7.By virtue of the unsympathetic form, massing, and the excessive bulk of the proposed dwellings (particularly Plots 5, 6 and 7), the proposal is considered not to enhance its immediate setting and would appear incongruous and overly dominant when compared to the smaller, predominantly single storey properties which front Butt Lane. This would be detrimental to the character of the area and the proposal is considered contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Pan (2026) Policy DHE1 and NPPF Policy DP3.
8.The size and positioning of the garages and overall parking layout is considered to give rise to a development which would have a car dominated design and provide a strongly suburban character that would detract from the rural surroundings. The proposal is considered contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Pan (2026) Policy DHE1 and NPPF Policy DP3.
9.The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal would meet the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021) for the following reasons: a. The applicant has not demonstrated that the Biodiversity Net Gain Hierarchy has been followed. b. The requirement to achieve 10% Biodiversity Net Gain has not been met. c. The trading rules have not been met. d. The Off-Site provision includes the removal of scrub habitat and replacing with grassland which is of lower distinctiveness. e. The applicant is proposing to use Unilateral Undertakings for the purpose of securing Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring fees. This is not a suitable mechanism as it is a one-way agreement and therefore not suitable for securing funds and monitoring for 30 years.
10.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.