| No. | Condition Text |
|---|---|
| 1. | The site fronts on to a private, unsurfaced and narrow track, which serves in excess of five dwellings, and is considered to be inadequate to cater for any further development whatsoever by reason of its poor construction, restricted width and lack of suitable passing provision.Approval of the proposed development would therefore add to the existing traffic difficulties on this sub-standard access road and create an undesirable precedent for further similar development in the vicinity to the detriment of highway safety. |
| 2. | Policy H5. of the Norfolk Structure Plan states that in villages not satisfying the criteria of Policy H4. housing development will normally be limited to individual dwellings or small groups of houses which enhance the form and character of the village and its setting.The proposal is considered to be contrary to this policy in that the erection of two bungalows in this part of Barn Lane where the development is more spaciously sited and on a site which has a severely restricted frontage would give rise to a form of development which would be out of character with the rural nature of the locality. Continued on next page. |
| 3. | Policy HOU7. in the "Suggested Changes Report" of the Deposit Version of the Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan states that, within the Village Development Limits of Runham, individual dwellings or small groups of dwellings, generally no more than five dwellings, may be permitted in those areas where Policy HOU6. of the Plan applies provided that criteria a) to d) of Policy HOU6. can be met. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of a restricted site which, if approved, would result in a cramped form of development which would be detrimental to the rural character of this part of Barn Lane and therefore contrary to the above mentioned criteria of which a) states "the proposal will not be significantly detrimental to the form, character and setting of the settlement".Furthermore,because the private,narrow and unsurfaced track is not adequate to cater for any further development and because the restricted width of the frontage of the application site necessitates a shared driveway, the proposal is contrary to c) above which requires that suitable access arrangements can be made to the development. |
