Issue - meetings

Thornlea, 23 The Village, Wigginton (06/00516/OUTM)

Meeting: 15/06/2006 - East Area Planning Sub-Committee (Item 4)

4 Thornlea, 23 The Village, Wigginton (06/00516/OUTM) pdf icon PDF 47 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a Major Outline Application (13 weeks), submitted by McCarthy and Stone (Devs) Ltd, for the erection of a two and three storey block of 15 no. apartments (siting and means of access for consideration).

 

Officers updated that Highways had previously indicated that the detail submitted was not adequate to approve the means of access but that following receipt of further details they were now satisfied with the proposed access to the site. They also confirmed that the density of the development was 52 dwellings to the hectare. Reference was also made to the submission from Wigginton Parochial Church Council giving their observations on the proposal which had been circulated to Members.

 

Representations in objection were received from the Chair of Governors of Wigginton Primary School, a neighbour and a representative of Wigginton Parish Council who reiterated their concerns as for the previous application for this site.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Application be refused.

 

REASON:               1               The proposal, by virtue of the absence of any offer of affordable housing, is contrary to the aims of PPG3 and Policy H2a of the Draft City of York Local Plan (incorporating the 4th set of changes).

 

 2            The proposal, by virtue of the scale, massing, bulk, overall height of the building, and access and layout of the site is considered to be out of character with, and detrimental to the appearance of The Village, and hence contrary to Policies GP1, GP10 and H4a  of the Draft City of York Local Plan (incorporating the 4th set of changes), and the aims of PPS1and PPG3.

 

 3            In the absence of plans showing how the access will be laid out and constructed it is considered that the access to the site can not accommodate the additional level of traffic proposed without detriment to the safety of pedestrians and other bridleway traffic and without detriment to the free flow of traffic. This is contrary to the aims of PPG3.


 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page