Agenda item

Erection of 1no. detached dwelling to side. [Rural West York]

Members considered a full application by Frank Rowell for the erection of 1no. detached dwelling to side.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the plans and Members were provided with an update to the officer report which included and amendment to condition 6 and two additional conditions relating to bat and bird boxes.  An informative was also added which covered the Party Wall Act.

Public Speakers

Ann Smith spoke in objection to the application.  She questioned the accuracy of the sun path analysis and raised concerns regarding the impact of the development on the boundary hedge and lack of mitigation in place to protect it.

Susan Tucket also spoke in objection to the application.  She noted that the parish council had rejected the application and stated that it did not fit in with the ethos of the village design statement and neighbourhood plan.  She also stated that it would have a negative effect on resident amenity and lead to an increase in traffic.

She responded to questions from Members and explained that the houses on the street had more space around them and explained that she was concerned about safety.

Keith Rushby spoke in objection to the application and emphasised potential problems relating to an excess of vehicles and difficulties with parking on the road. He also referred to the design statement.  In response to questions, he confirmed that there was no space to park in the hammerhead.

Jamie Pyper, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that the proposal aligned with local and national policy and confirmed the design was influenced by the local area and that the biodiversity net gain had been secured.

In response to questions from Members, he confirmed that the tree protection strategy would be submitted to the council prior to the work being undertaken and a construction management plan would also be made available.  The impact on the hedge had not been assessed but that officers had found the plans for the boundary to be acceptable.  The Party Wall Act was a civil matter and would be handled by a surveyor.  Testing for the soakaway was to be completed once drainage priorities had been established.

Questions for officers followed and the following was reported:

·       It was standard practice on smaller schemes to have the work hours of the site as an informative rather than a condition.  If necessary, this could be enforced elsewhere in the council. 

·       The hedge was a matter of residential amenity between the neighbours and did not warrant a foundation design. There were no rights for the applicant to remove the hedge or go on neighbouring land. 

·       The sustainability of the location was confirmed, noting a bus route and station and some local shops. 

·       It was standard practice to produce sun diagrams for March to September. 

·       The Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan held full weight when considering the planning balance and the Village Design Statement provided supplementary planning guidance, officers considered the application was in accordance with the plans.

·       To achieve biodiversity net gain, the applicant would purchase credit. Bird and bat boxes were part of the applicant’s own ecological assessment and considered appropriate.

Following debate, the Chair proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application subject to the inclusion of additional conditions relating to the protection of the hedge.  This was seconded by Cllr Melly.  On being put to a vote, there were two votes in favour, five against and one abstention, therefore the motion fell.

There followed a discussion on the proposed grounds for refusal and Cllr Fenton subsequently moved refusal due to overdevelopment of the site. This was seconded by Cllr Warters.  On being put to a vote there were six votes in favour and two against and therefore it was:

Resolved:             That the application be refused.

Reason:               The proposed development would result in the overdevelopment of the site which was contrary to policy D1 of the Local Plan and PNP4A and PNP6A of the Neighbourhood Plan. The projection of proposed dwelling along the side boundary rear of no.11 would result in a harmful overbearing impact; loss of space to the boundary contrary to Village Design Statement Guideline 17 harming the existing character of the area.