Agenda and minutes

The following sites were inspected before the meeting.

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on the agenda. Councillor Simpson-Laing declared a personal prejudicial interest in plans items 3c (Faith Cottage, 3 Low Green, Copmanthorpe) as she knew the Applicant. She left the room and took no part in the debate thereon.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered their wish to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is by 5pm the working day before the meeting. Members of the public can speak on specific planning applications or on other agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

To register please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of this agenda.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general issues within the remit of this Sub-Committee.

Members will consider a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development), relating to planning applications with an outline the proposals and relevant policy considerations and the views and advice of consultees and officers.

Members considered reports of the Assistant Director, Planning & Sustainable Development, relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant considerations and setting out the views and advice of consultees and Officers.

Outline application for the erection of a detached single storey dwelling (resubmission).  [Dringhouses & Woodthorpe Ward]

Members considered an outline application submitted by Mr D Seavers for the erection of a detached single storey dwelling within the side garden of No. 14 Foxton (resubmission).

Officers updated that an e-mail had been received from Councillor Holvey that stated the following:

·        A similar application was refused in June 2007 and the points raised at that point have not been suitably addressed

·        Residents of surrounding properties are concerned that the proposed development could have a dramatic effect on their standard of life

·        The lack of amenity for the new and existing property will be very small

The e-mail was circulated to all parties at the meeting.

Representations were received from Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Planning Panel in objection to the Application. The following reasons were given for this:

·        There had been little change to the application that was refused in July 2007

·        The Planning Panel were against infilling on garden land in this area

·        There were concerns that the proposed development would adversely effect 4 neighbouring properties

·        There were concerns regarding access to the new development

Representations were also received on behalf of the Applicant. It was stated that the garden at 14 Foxton was very large and therefore suitable for infill. The proposed footprint had now been reduced by 9m² in answer to concerns raised at a previous meeting in June.

Members raised concerns about access to the proposed development. They also felt that the application was not significantly different to the previous one.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:                  It is considered that the amendments to the previous refused scheme have not overcome the reason for refusal and that In view of the size of the site and the relationship with adjacent buildings the erection of a dwelling on the land would result in a development that would appear to be cramped and out of character with its surroundings, furthermore, because of its proximity to nos. 17 - 21 Chantry Close a dwelling would be likely to harm the living conditions of these bungalows and their rear gardens through loss of outlook and an overbearing impact.  The proposal would be contrary to policy GP1 and GP10 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan 2005.

Enclosed garden area with fence.  [Dringhouses & Woodthorpe Ward]

Members considered a full application submitted by D Nicholson for an enclosed garden area with fence.

Officers updated that they were still awaiting information regarding the details in Condition 4 set out in the report.

Representations were received from Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Planning Panel who stated that they had no objection to the proposals.

Members asked for an informative regarding planting between the proposed fence and Moor Lane to help soften the appearance of the fence when viewed from Moor Lane.

RESOLVED:                      That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the following additional informative.

·               The applicant is advised that the West & City Centre Area Planning Sub-Committee has requested that any opportunities which may exist to introduce planting between the proposed fence and Moor Lane itself should be taken, to soften the appearance of the fence when viewed from Moor Lane and the surrounding Green Belt.

REASON:                           The proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the visual amenity of the surrounding area and tree protection. As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1 and NE1 of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft.

One and two storey pitched roof side extension (resubmission).  [Rural West York Ward]

Members considered a full application submitted by Mr and Mrs J Corner-Walker for a one and two storey pitched roof side extension (resubmission).

Officers updated that there were some revised drawings showing the head heights of the rooms. These were available for viewing at the meeting.

Members queried whether the head height of the rooms would be altered if the ridge height was lowered and the Officer said that he had not seen any drawings that showed that this would be the case.

Representations were received from the applicant who stated the following reasons for not lowering the ridge height:

·        The internal ceiling height would be reduced

·        By having a split level ridge height there is an increased water leakage problem

·        Dropping the floor joists to maximise ceiling height is not possible as this would mean the dropping of the downstairs floor level

·        The upstairs windows would not be level

·        Neighbours adjacent drive slopes at the same gradient as the drive at 3 Low Green

·        The existing house at 3 Low Green would have to be increased by at least 50% before it started to threaten the dominance of 5 Low Green

·        3 Low Green is badly in need of pointing and repair

·        There are 38 houses within 500m of 3 Low Green that have recently been extended without lowering the ridge height

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:                  That the proposed extension, by virtue of its form, massing and design, would be unsympathetic to the existing subservient character of the dwelling in relation to the attached property, that together form a distinctive grouping and character in this part of the conservation area. Thus the proposal would have an unduly harmful impact on the street scene, the dwelling and the grouping of buildings and is considered to conflict with Policy E4 of the North Yorkshire Structure Plan (1995), Policies GP1, H7 and HE2 of the York Draft Local Plan (2005),national planning advice in Planning Policy Statement 1: “Delivering Sustainable Development” and Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: “Planning and the Historic Environment,” City of York Council supplementary planning guidance: “Guide to extensions and alterations to private dwelling houses” (2001), and the Copmanthorpe Village Design Statement (2003).

Single storey pitched roof side extension and pitched roof dormer to the front.  [Rural West York Ward]

Members considered a full application submitted by Mr and Mrs Tweedhope for a single storey pitched roof side extension and pitched roof dormer to the front.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

REASON:                  The proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to visual and residential amenity. As such the proposal complies with Policies H7 and GP1 of the City of York Development Control Draft Local Plan.