Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The height of the extension, at 7.2 metres with an eaves height of 4.75m and depth of 4.75m, combined with the proposed Southern elevation windows would result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure, would cause direct overlooking of rooms and private rear garden, and will be unduly overbearing and visually intrusive when experienced from the garden and upstairs rear rooms of the adjoining neighbouring dwelling No.10 Gedge Road to the south, causing an unacceptable loss of amenity and enjoyment of the neighbouring dwelling house. 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 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 subordinate or subservient to the host dwelling. Furthermore, when considered in combination with the porch proposed to the side, the two extensions create an unbroken expanse of dominant and repetitive brickwork extending from the front of the dwelling all the way through to the eastern end of the proposed extension, which is exacerbated by the use of a gable roof to the two-storey extension which further creates a sense of disproportion. This would be contrary to policy CS09 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2015) and policy H9 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 height.
3.The development also proposes that the existing rear elevation windows of the host dwelling will be built over / enclosed by the new extension, and daylight to the extension and interior of the first floor will be achieved only by the singular window proposed to the rear for the new bedroom. This removes the only window serving the existing rear bedroom of the house, so no natural light or means of escape will be provided for the retained first floor bedroom within the internal core of the dwelling, 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 window and the lack of alternative source of daylight and 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 HEC 7 of the Emerging Local Plan (examination version 2026), to which significant weight should be afforded.
4.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.