Agenda item

This application seeks permission for the conversion of the existing property into two dwellings (dwelling 1 and 2) with associated extensions and alterations and the construction of a new dwelling (dwelling 3) in the rear garden with access from Ash Lane.

Members considered an application which sought permission for the conversion of the existing property into two dwellings (dwelling 1 and 2) with associated extensions and alterations and the construction of a new dwelling (dwelling 3) in the rear garden with access from Ash Lane.

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application. This was followed by an update with recent additional information and representations made. Members asked officers a number of questions to which they answered that:

·        There was existing access to the rear of the property, and that although the development would cause an increase in traffic in the lane, the increased traffic would not in the opinion of highways officers meet the threshold for a severe or unacceptable impact on safety as set out in paragraph 111 of the NPPF.

·        New passing places would be installed as part of the development to help ensure that traffic can flow.

·        In order for the passing place to be clearly marked, the gravel surface of the lane would have to be replaced with paving and a sign installed.

·        Officers considered the proposals to be acceptable from a planning point of view, and clarified that private disputes over ownership of land did not fall under the remit of the planning process.

·        While there was no way to enforce the use of the vehicle turntable in forward gear, the possibility of cars reversing was not enough to recommend refusal of the application.

·        There was enough room for bin storage for each of the proposed properties.

·        There were spaces reserved in the plan for cycle storage.

·        Emergency services were consulted on the proposed width of the lane after the installation of the new passing places and raised no objections.

·        There was a previous application for the property in 2003 which was refused and dismissed at appeal, and that the comments of the planning inspector for that application had been taken into consideration when creating the present application.

Public Speakers

Diane Flowers spoke in opposition to the application as a local resident. She explained that she considered the new bungalow to be out of character with the surrounding properties and that the application ignored the influence the new property would have on its surroundings. She further explained that she considered the application to have ignored the City of York Design Guide, arguing that the application will lead to overdevelopment, noise and light pollution, and restrict natural light to other properties. She also referred to previously rejected similar applications on the site and on a nearby property.

Richard Bailey spoke in opposition to the application as a local resident, citing errors and omissions in the planning officers’ report. He explained that he owns part of Ash Lane and the turning circle and that since the report encouraged parking in the lane for delivery vehicles and visitors, it was encouraging trespass on his land. He further explained that he considered that it had not been established that the new properties had a right to use the turning circle, so they would be forced to reverse down to the lane. He explained that, in his opinion, no considerations had been given to previous refusals of similar applications, and that traffic along the lane had only increased since those refusals.

Paul Lee spoke in support of the application as the owner of the property. He thanked officers for their work on the application and highlighted the passing places as an addition to the application which, in his opinion, would increase access, visibility and safety. He explained that the needs and objections of neighbours were considered during the creation of the proposal. He referred to the proposals as having as minimal an impact as possible, and described the designs as making the best use of the space available. He addressed concerns around access, explaining that in the 5 years he has lived at the property, there had never been any issues around access, and that vehicle usage of the lane would continue to be low. He explained that there was a 280 square meter communal turning head for all residents which would negate any need to reverse out of the lane.

Cllr Edward Pearson spoke in objection to the application as Ward Councillor on behalf of local residents. He explained that he was not in principle opposed to the sub division to the house, but that the manner of division proposed in the application was inappropriate in his eyes, being out of character with the local area. He explained that the new properties would not benefit from any outdoor amenity space and that many previous applications had been rejected along Ash Lane for reasons of access. He considered the application to be contrary to the City of York Council’s Highway Design Guide on shared driveways.

In response to questions from committee members, Cllr Pearson stated that he believed that large vehicles such as bin lorries could not turn in the lane, and while a smaller vehicle such as a delivery van could do so, it would limit access to anyone else attempting to use the lane at the same time.

In response to further questions from members, officers noted that:

·        The passing places are a new addition compared to previous applications and that one of the previous applications referred to by a public speaker was for a 13-bed nursing home, which would have created much larger volumes of traffic than the current proposal. It was also noted that there had been significant changes to planning policy since past refusals.

·        The planning inspector from a previous application of May 2005 was of the opinion that a very similar proposal would lead to overdevelopment and was out of keeping with its surroundings.

·        Dwelling 1 would retain permitted development rights if the application were approved, but that there would be no opportunities to implement these rights due to a lack of remaining space after the building of the proposed development.

·        The development will have some impact on light to surrounding properties, but it was not considered by officers to be of a degree that would merit recommending refusal of the application.

·        That the proposed passing place measured around 4.4 metres in width, and the general width of a car is 1.8 metres, which would allow cars to pass, although some larger vehicles may have to wait at the widest point at the top of the lane.

·        Visibility splays would be within the acceptable limit.

·        Officers do not consider the proposals to be overdevelopment because each dwelling retain adequate and appropriate outside amenity space such as bin storage.

·        Officers had not deemed it necessary to install additional lighting on the lane.

·        Cars currently reverse into the lane to park, and leave the lane in forward gear.

After debate, it was moved by Cllr Fisher and seconded by Cllr Melly to refuse the application. A named vote was taken and Cllrs Fisher, Lomas, Melly, Perrett, Waudby and Hollyer voted in favour, with Cllrs Crawshaw and Galvin abstaining. The motion was carried and it was therefore:

Resolved: That the application is refused.

Reason:

The proposed single storey detached dwelling by virtue of its scale, design and layout would result in the creation of a dwelling which would be out of keeping with the existing character of the locality and result in significant harm being caused to the character and appearance of the area which is considered unacceptable in principle. The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of a constrained site which contributes to the character and layout of the area and is considered to be inappropriate for a development of this nature in this location. The proposals would therefore conflict with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in particular paragraphs 130 and 134 and Policy D1 of the emerging Publication Draft City of York Local Plan 2018.

 [The meeting adjourned from 17:38 to 17:52].