Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The application site is located within the development limits of Caister where the principle of residential extensions to dwellinghouses and annexes can be acceptable. The proposed enlargement of the existing annexe would however more than double the total floor area. The enlarged annexe, by virtue of the layout of the site, could be accessed independently from the principal dwelling. The proposed enlarged annexe would no longer be subordinate to the principal dwelling and would therefore be tantamount to a separate dwellinghouse. The proposal therefore fails to accord Policy H10 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) and Policy HOU10 of the Emerging Local Plan.
2.The creation of an enlarged annexe would be tantamount to a new dwelling and would cause harm to the amenity of the occupiers of the principal dwelling. The main entrance serving the proposed enlarged annexe would be sited within proximity, only 5m-6m from the primary living spaces serving the principal dwelling. The siting of the proposed enlarged annexe, relative to the principal dwelling, would therefore cause harm by way of noise, loss of privacy and general disturbance caused by the comings and goings to and from the annexe. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Policies A1, H9, and H10 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) and policy CS9 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (2015). The proposal would also fail to comply with Emerging Local Plan Policy HEC7 which brings forward similar amenity considerations.
3.The erection of an annex of a scale and operation tantamount to use as an additional dwelling would increase the pressure on the Garfield Terrace access track and increase the likelihood of further vehicle conflicts, especially when considering the extensive sections without passing spaces, and this could result in vehicles having to reverse back out onto Yarmouth Road, by reason of its inadequate width, limited passing provision and absence of safe refuge for non-vehicular traffic. The proposal would therefore lead to vehicles reversing onto the highway or into other domestic premises to the detriment of highway safety as well as an increase chance of vehicle conflicts on the track itself; the addition of a single passing bay does not sufficiently reduce the chance of vehicle conflicts and would result in conditions detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS16, Emerging Local Plan Policy SUT1 and Paragraphs 115(a), 115(b), 116 and 117(a), (b) and (c) of the NPPF (December 2024).
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.