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.There is a lack of safe pedestrian access to local amenities from the site along Market Road and therefore it is considered that there would be a reliance on the private car for future occupants of the proposed development. As such it would be contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policy SUT1 which seeks to ensure that new developments provide easy access for everyone to jobs, shops and community facilities by walking, cycling and public transport.
3.The application site is located within an area which is characterised by its pleasant verdant, rural and open qualities. The creation of a new dwelling, along with a new access and areas of curtilage would fundamentally alter the appearance of the site through its suburbanisation. This would erode the rural qualities and openness of the area which would be generally harmful to its character and appearance and this harm would be evident from Market Road. This is contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policies DHE1 and NAT7, NPPF Policy DP3 and Belton with Browston, Burgh Castle, and Fritton with St Olaves Neighbourhood Plan Policy 5.
4.The single dwelling situated on a 0.235 Hectare plot would mean that 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 dwelling fails to respond to the surrounding vernacular and proposes a dwelling with particularly flat front elevation, with no overhanging eaves or way in relief. This is exacerbated by the poor window placement and the overall design is not of a sufficiently high standard to present a suitable form of development in such a prominent and visible location. This is contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policy DHE1 and NPPF Policy DP3 and Belton with Browston, Burgh Castle, and Fritton with St Olaves Neighbourhood Plan Policy 5.
6.The application proposes the demolition of an agricultural building which benefits from a Class Q consent which the applicant is suggesting is a fallback position which would mean that the principle of development could be considered acceptable. However, it is not considered this as a reasonable fallback position when considering that the agricultural building is accessed from a different access, and the proposed dwelling is on a neighbouring field. Notwithstanding this, when considering the demolition of the agricultural building the application is not supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that demolition of the existing agricultural building is necessary or justified. No structural appraisal, viability assessment, embodied carbon assessment, or comparative whole-life carbon analysis has been submitted to demonstrate that retention and conversion of the building has been fully considered. The proposal is therefore now contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policy CLC7.
7.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 Plan (2026) Policy HEC2.
8.Safe access to the site and the required visibility splays has only been made possible through the unauthorised removal of the protected hedgerow to the northern boundary of the application site and whilst no formal Enforcement Action has yet been taken; should formal Enforcement Action be taken options include but are not limited to the replanting of the hedgerow in its previous position. Policy NAT10 is clear that hedgerows should be retained where they contribute value to the character, amenity, or ecology of the locality and therefore the removal of this hedgerow would have been resisted. Given this, the proposal is considered to the contrary to Great Yarmouth Local Plan (2026) Policies SUT1, NAT7 and NAT10 and NPPF Policies N2 and DP3.
9.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.