Great Yarmouth Borough Council Portal
No.Condition Text
1.The site is located outside of the development limits defined by Policy GSP1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021). Here, development is only acceptable in principle if it comprises agricultural or forestry development, the provision of utilities and highway infrastructure or where specific policies in the local plan indicate otherwise. The proposal does not comprise any of the exemptions and the principle of new market housing in this location is not considered acceptable. The proposal is contrary to adopted Core Strategy (2015) policy CS2(a), adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy GSP1 and Emerging Local Plan Policy OSS3.
2.The site is located in an unsustainable location remote from town centre shopping and day-to-day services and has restricted employment opportunities with limited scope for improving access by foot and public transport. The distance and conditions of travel and access to the nearest service centre provision precludes any realistic opportunity of encouraging a modal shift away from the private car towards public transport, cycling or walking. Therefore the site is not located to minimise the need to travel and is not in a sustainable location for new development. As a result, the proposed development conflicts with the aims of sustainable development and does not satisfy the requirements of Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and Policy GSP1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
3.The application site is classified as Grade 1 Agricultural Land, being of the highest quality best and most versatile land. The proposal would result in the loss of approximately 0.1 hectares of best and most versatile land and no justification for this loss has been presented as part of this planning application. There are no wider public benefits or significant community benefits which would result from the proposal which would outweigh the harm from the loss of this Grade 1 Agricultural Land. The unjustified loss of best and most versatile land is contrary to Policies CS6, CS11 and CS12 of the Core Strategy (2015), Policy 5 of the Fleggburgh Neighbourhood Plan, Policy OSS3 of the Emerging Local Plan and Paragraph 187 of the NPPF (December 2024).
4.The erection of a dwelling on the 0.1 hectare site would result in a density of 9.67 dwellings per hectare which represents a significant shortfall from the requirements of Policy H3 which would expect a net minimum density of 20 dwellings per hectare for developments within Fleggburgh, and also represents a less dense form of development compared to the surrounding area. The proposal fails to make efficient use of the land and therefore fails to comply with the adopted Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS09, adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy H3, National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 128, and Section BF3 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (adopted January 2024).
5.The application site sits to the south-west of Fleggburgh. This part of Fleggburgh is rural in character and mostly consists of linear development fronting either the A1064 (Main Road) or the roads leading off it. The proposal is for a backland form of development with a poor relationship with surrounding properties and contrary to the surrounding pattern of development. A dwelling in this location would represent an intrusion into the undeveloped rural countryside to the south which would be harmful to the rural character and no soft landscaping or appropriate boundary features have been proposed to mitigate this impact. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, Sections CI1 and BF1 of the Design Code, Policies 2 and 5 of the Fleggburgh Neighbourhood Plan and Emerging Local Plan Policy DHE1.
6.The proposed dwelling is located poorly on the site and this results in an overly car dominated environment with little provision of rear garden/amenity space. The siting of the dwelling is contrary to the prevailing built form which is defined in part by dwellings with a well sized rear garden. This, in combination with the backland nature of the plot would result in a dwelling which would be incongruous and out of keeping with the surrounding character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, Sections CI1 and BF1 of the Design Code, Policy 2 of the Fleggburgh Neighbourhood Plan and Emerging Local Plan Policy DHE1.
7.The proposed form, layout and materials palette of the dwelling would result in a form of development which is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The design of the dwelling is not considered to be reflective of or complementary to the surrounding character and the proposed materials usage is neither reflective of the local vernacular nor high in quality, which exacerbates concerns about the overall design of the dwelling and contributes to the unacceptable nature and form of development proposed. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy A2, NPPF Paragraphs 135 and 139, Sections CI1, CI4 and BF1 of the Design Code, Policy 2 of the Fleggburgh Neighbourhood Plan and Emerging Local Plan Policy DHE1.
8.The application proposes to utilise an unauthorised access to the agricultural field served through Rye Gardens although the application provides no details of how regularising the current access would have the effect of amending the approved layout to Rye Gardens. Amending the approved layout of Rye Gardens has not been proposed as part of this application and therefore any associated impacts to that development have not been able to be assessed as part of the determination of this application. The lack of information in this regard means that the application must be refused on this basis.
9.The application site is located within the orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone and the application is not supported by an up-to-date shadow template Habitats Regulations Assessment or the required GIRAMS contribution of £315.58 required for this development to mitigate any impact on designated sites through increased recreational pressures, which are both 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 and the Council as Competent Authority under the Habitats Regulations cannot fully assess the additional impact, in terms of indirect and direct impacts upon the internationally-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 CS14, and the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies GSP5 and GSP8, and Emerging Local Plan Policy NAT4.
10.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, which is considered unacceptable for development in a part of the Borough where there is an identified deficit of public open space, causing residential development to lack the appropriate facilities required in the vicinity. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS14 and CS15 and Policies GSP8 and H4 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
11.The application has not demonstrated that the proposal should be exempt from the requirements of providing Biodiversity Net Gain, as it is considered insufficient to rely on the stated declaration that this is to be a self-build dwelling on its own without there being a guarantee of a self-build dwelling being delivered through the original submission of the application as a described self-build dwelling and without the necessary self-build planning obligations being secured by legal agreement. Therefore, as the baseline ecological conditions on the site have not been assessed and quantified, and no measures have been presented to secure at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value on the site, the development does not meet the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021).
12.The application form states that surface water would be discharged via soakaways and a watercourse but the are no details within the application as to the practicality of how this would be achieved. Given the proximity of the site to the Trinity Broads, it is possible that any water course would have hydrological links with the Trinity Broads which is a designated ecological site. Therefore, as no surface water drainage strategy has been provided it is not possible to assess whether the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the designated site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11, Local Plan Part 2 Part 2 (2021) Policy I3 and Emerging Local Plan Policy CLC3.
13.Fleggburgh Neighbourhood Plan identifies that the site lies within an area of intrinsically dark skies. This is further evidenced by the application site being within Dark Skies Zone 1 to be designated by Emerging Local Plan Policy NAT9. Here there is an expectation that dwellings will be designed in a way to protect the intrinsically dark skies. The dwelling includes large amounts of glazing and multiple large roof lights which would allow for light spill and contribute to a deterioration of the night sky. The application is contrary to Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy E6, Fleggburgh Neighbourhood Plan Policy 6, Emerging Local Plan Policy NAT9 and NPPF Paragraph 198c.
14.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.