Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The full length of the access route to serve the dwellings is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of its inadequate width, limited passing provision and absence of safe refuse 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).
2.The proposal seeks to restrict occupancy to 'over 55s' in an attempt to mitigate vehicle movements along the access track, due to the overall inadequate nature of the access track. There is no evidence submitted in support of the application to support the applicant's assertion that a restriction on the occupancy of the dwellings to over 55-year-olds would result in any fewer car movements compared to market dwellings, and therefore even when considering the proposal with an occupancy restriction the proposal would result in increased chance of conflict and conditions detrimental to highway safety. The application is therefore considered 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).
3.The application has specifically been promoted for being dwellings for the 'over 55s'. However, the proposed development presents little appearance or function as a development to address an age-related need, and as such is not considered to constitute older people housing as defined in Emerging Local Plan policy HOU5. As no evidence has been provided that the dwellings have been designed specifically to meet the needs of older people and no mechanism has been provided to secure the dwellings as housing for older people. Therefore, the application is therefore contrary to adopted Local Plan Part 2 Policy H11 and Emerging Local Plan Policy HOU5.
4.The application site is located within the Red 400m Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by the required £631.16 GIRAMS contribution, which is necessary for the purposes of satisfying the Council's duty to avoid impacts on internationally protected site through the use of the Green Infrastructure Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (GIRAMS). As such the Local Planning Authority cannot fully assess the additional impact, in terms of indirect and direct impacts upon the designated sites within the Borough without satisfaction that the required mitigation would be provided. As a result, the application is contrary to the adopted Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11 and the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 Policies GSP5 and GSP8 (2021), Emerging Local Plan Policy NAT4 and the The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
5.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 Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies GSP8 and Policy H4, and Emerging Local Plan Policy HEC2.
6.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.