Agenda and minutes

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 at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda. No interests were declared.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Sub-Committee’s remit can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or requires further information is requested to contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Wednesday 26 March 2008 at 5.00pm.

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

To determine the following planning applications related to the East Area.

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development), relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views and advice of consultees and officers.

Erection of bungalow with room in roof on land adjacent to 1 Irwin Avenue and 14 Dodsworth Avenue. [Heworth Ward]

Members considered a full application, submitted by Toad Hall Developments, for the erection of a bungalow with room in the roof on land adjacent to 1 Irwin Avenue and 14 Dodsworth Avenue.

Officers updated that this was a revised application following its deferral at the Sub-Committees meeting in October 2007. They reported that the speaker at today’s meeting had emailed Members a letter, which set out the neighbour’s objections to this application for a bungalow, and their support for the next application, on the agenda, for a two storey detached dwelling. Officers reminded Members that the inclusion of a cat-slide dormer window facing Irwin Avenue was the only change to the original proposal. Members were informed that a cat-slide dormer was one with a pitched roof, which was shallower that the main roof, and not a flat roofed.

Representations were then received from a neighbour who represented six local residents. He stated that the issue was the type of dwelling that was appropriate on the site. The neighbours felt a bungalow on this prominent corner plot would be out of keeping with the uniform frontage along Irwin and Dodsworth Avenues. These were semi detached two storey dwellings with pitched roofs, inset porches and bay windows. They felt that a bungalow would be a mass and scale that did not reflect adjacent dwellings, as there were no single storey dwellings or bungalows in the area. He also stated that the residents supported the application on the agenda for a two storey detached dwelling which they felt was more in keeping with the character of the area and drew on the design of adjacent dwellings.

Representations in support of the application were made by the applicants agent, who stated that they had tried to reflect the plot size and the single storey sub station on the opposite corner of Irwin Avenue. They considered that the bungalow was of a similar size, scale and mass. She confirmed that amendments to the design had been made in line with Members comments at their meeting in October. She also confirmed that they would be happy with either of the applications on the agenda although the cat-slide dormer she felt did not add anything to the design of the bungalow and felt that this should be re-examined.

The Chair confirmed that there were two separate applications on the agenda for this site and that they should be considered as such.

Certain Members felt that a comparison should not be made with the sub station, which was not a dwelling. They felt that the proposed bungalow would be out of keeping with the surrounding area and that it would appear incongruous on this site.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the imposition of conditions set out in the report.

REASON:                  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed, would not cause undue harm to housing density, sustainability, visual impact, open space, neighbour amenity and highway issues.  The application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95a

Erection of a two storey detached dwelling adjacent to 1 Irwin Avenue and 14 Dodsworth Avenue. [Heworth Ward]

Consideration was given to a full application, submitted by Toad Hall Developments, for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling adjacent to 1 Irwin Avenue and 14 Dodsworth Avenue.

Officers reminded Members that the letter circulated at the meeting from six local residents, in connection with the previous application, also referred to this proposal. The residents strongly supported this proposal, which they felt was in keeping with the area and the site. Officers referred to Highway comments and, with the aid of the plans, they explained that an on site turning space was not essential as the majority of residents reversed out. This meant that the width of the drive could be reduced slightly from 4m to 3.2m thereby reducing the area of hard standing but this would require an amendment to Condition 13.

Some Members confirmed that local residents wished to have a more appropriate development in this prominent area and that this two story dwelling was more in keeping.

RESOLVED:             That approval be granted subject to the imposition of the conditions set out in the report and subject to the amendment of Condition 13 as set out below:

13.Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted drawings, the width of the drive where it crosses the public footpath shall be 3.2m. 

REASON:                  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed, would not cause undue harm to housing density, sustainability, visual impact, open space, neighbour amenity and highway issues.  The application therefore complies with policies GP1, GP4a, H4a, H5a, T4, and L1c.

Single storey infill extension to front and conservatory to rear. [Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward]

Consideration was given to a full application, submitted by Mark Grandfield, for a single storey infill extension to the front and a conservatory to the rear.

Officers updated that discrepancies had been found on the drawings submitted with this application, which resulted in the dimensions of the extension and conservatory being smaller than those scaled on the drawings. The conservatory would now be 4.5m wide x 3.5m and the infill extension to the front 2.5 x 2m, as these were smaller reconsultation was not required.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and subject to the amendment of Condition 4:

                        4. The development hereby approved shall be implemented in complete accordance with the dimensions stated in the e-mail sent by the applicant to the City of York Council on 19 March 2008, i.e. front extension 2.5 m x 2.0 m, rear conservatory 4.5 m wide x 3.5 m in depth.

REASON:                  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the effect on residential amenity and the impact on the street scene.  As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1 and H7 of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft.