Agenda item

Erection of a part 2-storey, part single-storey, detached, 3-bedroom house. [Copmanthorpe Ward]

[Cllr Crawshaw re-joined the meeting immediately after the adjournment, at 18:10]

Members considered an application that sought to erect a part 2-storey, part single-storey, detached, 3-bedroom house on land to the north of 21 Main Street, Copmanthorpe.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application in which he outlined plans for the property.

Public Participants

Parish Cllr, Lars Kramm, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Copmanthorpe Parish Council and the Methodist Church trustees.  He highlighted the Parish’s concerns that the property was not needed and not in keeping with the identity of the village.  He noted that the church was a valued community asset and drew Member’s attention to problems regarding overshadowing and loss of light to the Methodist Church’s outside space. 

Phillip Watson spoke in objection, as a local resident.  He raised concerns that the application had been filed incorrectly.  He also noted that the land provided an open space amenity to the village and was a biodiverse habitat for wildlife. He stated that there were concerns regarding privacy; that the building was disproportionate, it was an overdevelopment and not in keeping with the village. Finally, he raised concerns regarding pedestrian safety.

Following a Member’s query, Mr Watson explained that privacy issues revolved around the windows which over looked the neighbouring property and properties on the road behind the plot.

Andrew Piatt from Gateley Legal, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He described the plans for the property and explained the ways in which they would echo the street scene.  He also explained the consideration given to neighbouring properties in terms of privacy and amenity.

In response to questions, the agent described the access to the property and explained the benefits, in terms of noise insulation, of the windowless elevation that would face the church.

The Development Manager and Case Officer then responded to a number of questions from Members as follows:

·        Bins could be stored at the back of the property and prior to collection be brought to the front of the property and be stored off the highway.

·        The Copmanthorpe Village Design Statement was approved in 2002 as a supplementary planning document and therefore had weight as a material consideration. The Draft Neighbourhood Plan had not been submitted for consideration by the City of York Council (CYC), it therefore had limited weight.

·        Overshadowing was taken into account during the planning process, this would not override the actions an adjacent landowner could take in terms of private rights to light.  The right to light to outside areaswas a material consideration although the amount of weight it carried in the planning balance was less than the right to light in habitable spaces. Also in consideration, was the impact loss of light would have on the functioning of a non-residential use.

·        The windows on the side of the church building, next to the proposed house, were located over the stairwell.

·        There would be some loss of sunlight to the church’s patio area, particularly during the winter.

·        Condition 15 defined the hours of operation for the site.  Members could consider a construction environment management plan.

·        The design of the building takes into account the activities of the church, in terms of noise and public access.

·        The gap between the proposed building and the boundary of no. 21 ranged between negligible and 1 to 1.5 metres.

·        All windows facing no. 21 had obscured glass, there was not a clear view from the proposed development.

Cllr Webb moved to accept the Officer recommendation and recommend to the Chief Operation Officer to approve the application.  This motion was seconded by the Chair. 

A named vote was taken which recorded the following:

·        Cllrs Crawshaw, Melly, Orrell, Webb and the Chair voted for the motion. 

·        The following Members voted against the motion: Cllrs Craghill, Daubeney, Fisher, Galvin, Perrett, Waudby. 

The motion was therefore lost.

After further debate, it was moved by Cllr Galvin and seconded by Cllr Fisher that the application be rejected due to overdevelopment of the site which would lead to a cramped development that was detrimental to the conservation area.

A named vote was taken which resulted in the following:

·        Cllrs Craghill, Daubeney, Fisher, Galvin, Perrett, Waudby voted for the motion.

·        Cllrs Crawshaw, Melly, Orrell, Webb and Hollyer voted against the motion. 

The motion was therefore carried and it was:

Resolved: That the Chief Operating Officer be recommended to refuse the planning application.

Reason:     The proposed development would, on the small, narrow plot, appear cramped, out of character and harmful to the character and appearance of Copmanthorpe Conservation Area.