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 asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they had in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 11 February 2010.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 11 February 2010, be signed as a correct record by the Chair.

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 Thursday 10 March at 5pm.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

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

This is an application to erect a two-storey extension to a small bungalow fronting onto School Lane. The building is located within what was originally the rear garden of 65 Main Street. Several amendments have been submitted since the application was originally submitted in August 2009. [Fulford] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for the erection of a two-storey extension to rear of the property at 52 School Lane, Fulford. Several amendments had been made since the application was originally submitted.

They were updated that there had been a further letter of objection to the application received from a resident of 69 Main Street, Fulford. The letter expressed concern that the proposed extension to the property at 52 School Lane would shorten the distance to the back of his property and would result in a loss of privacy.

Councillor Aspden as Ward Councillor had made representations to Officers. He stated that he supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal, but sought further clarification. In particular, he wished to draw attention to the loss of the burgage plot resulting from the development.

Councillor Moore sought clarification from Officers of whether the proposed car port to the rear of the extension as highlighted in paragraph 4.12 had been deleted. They responded that the applicant had deleted this element of the proposal.

Representations in opposition were heard from a neighbour, Mr Young, who was representing other neighbours adjacent to the property. He circulated additional diagrams and photographs to illustrate the impact of the proposal. He also declared to the Committee that he had recently become a Parish Councillor but that this was three months after the application had been submitted. His reasons for opposing the application was that the property would be increased by 3.5 times of the original size and that only 25% of the amenity space would remain.

Further representations in opposition were heard from a Representative of Fulford Parish Council, Mrs De Vries. She stated that the Parish Council welcomed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application due to the harm it would cause to the Conservation Area. She said that the Parish Council was opposed to the truncation of the burgage plot, resulting from the extension of the existing granny annex to a two storey dwelling. She finally stated that the design of the proposed dwelling was inappropriate and would have a detrimental effect on the street scene and appearance of the conservation area.

Representations in support of the application were also heard from the applicants agent, Mr Chapman, who stated that in essence the burgage plot would be retained due to the elongated nature of the extension. He added that he respected that the Officer’s recommendation was particularly difficult as it only made reference to the tight manoeuvring space. Further to this he said  that the comments from the Highways department towards the application were not negative.

Councillor Pierce moved approval because he felt that the application would capture, recreate and underline the burgage plot and conservation area.  He added that the remodelling of the building had been successful and urged the Committee to review the recommendation of refusal. He finally added that he did not consider that the proposal was not for a extension, but for the replacement of a smaller dwelling with a larger one. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53a

This is a full planning application for the erection of 2 dwellings following the demolition of existing outbuildings at the above site. The site forms the rear area of 69/71/73 Fourth Avenue.[Heworth] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for the erection of 2 dwellings following the demolition of existing outbuildings at the site to the rear of 69/71/73 Fourth Avenue. This was called in to the Committee by Councillor

Officers updated Members informing them that Councillor Potter as Ward Member had sent an email supporting the Officer’s recommendation due to the detrimental effect on the surrounding properties.

The Agent for the applicant’s Architect, Mr Dykes, commented to Members that the views from the windows of the adjacent properties is not ideal but that residents would rather have a view of new houses than an unattractive building and untidy rear yard. He stated that although there was a restricted amenity space, only 11 out of 15 residents on Fourth Avenue use their entrance doors. He added that they only use the rear of their properties to empty their recycling bins.

Mr Gildener, a local resident, spoke in support of the application. He told Members that he thought that this was an imaginative scheme and that there would only be a marginal increase in height to include the space of the roof.  He also suggested that if the application was approved that it would improve the surrounding area which was in need of an uplift. He finally stated that he thought that the city would benefit from two more units for local residents not students.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:       (i)        It is considered that the new dwellings, by virtue of their massing, siting and proximity to windows on the rear elevation of existing dwelling units within 69/71/73 Fourth Avenue, will result in unacceptable loss of light and dominance which will be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of the existing dwelling units. This is considered to be contrary to national planning advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” and Policy GP1 of the City of York Draft Local Plan.      

                       (ii)         The rear yard of 69/71/73 Fourth Avenue provides the outdoor amenity and servicing space for 15 flats, and the introduction of two further dwelling units would not diminish this need. It is considered that the comings and goings within the service yard area and the location of the site on the front of a service road, which also serves the rear of the shops, and properties within the area, will be detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers of the site. This contrary to advice on design set out in paragraphs 33 to 39 of Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ and Policy GP1 of the City of York Local Draft Plan.

The applicant seeks planning permission to erect a two-storey side extension to the property.  The ground floor of the extension is proposed to be used as a garage (with an access door to the front and rear), with the first floor providing an en-suite bedroom. [Heworth] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for a two storey side extension to the property. This application was brought to the Committee at the request of the local Ward Member.

Officers updated Members by saying that they had received an additional letter from a resident stating that the area is worthy of conservation area status. They informed Members that there were a variety of styles of properties on the street.

Representations in objection were heard from a neighbour, Mr Ravenhall. He  argued that the application was not in keeping with the style of the other properties on the street. He added that the featureless wall that was within the proposal for number 49 would restrict light in to the kitchen and landing area of the property.

Members asked Officers if they were content that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the lighting.

Officers replied that the proposal would have an impact but that this would be relatively minor and in their view acceptable.

Members commented that there were not strong grounds to oppose the Officer’s recommendation. They added that they could understand the points presented by the objectors but that the impact of the light lost from the wall proposed at number 49 would be minimal. Additionally they noted that because Muncastergate was not in a conservation area, that the grounds for refusal on the grounds of design and appearance would be tenuous. Finally they commented on how they thought the extension had been designed to fit in with the surrounding area and that there was an existing garage in the vicinity which was far wider than the one proposed.

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

REASON:                  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the impact on the streetscene and the amenity and living conditions of adjacent occupiers. As such the proposal complies with Policies H7 and GP1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan and the Council’s ‘Guide to Extensions and Alterations to Private Dwelling Houses’ supplementary Planning Guidance.

This is a full planning application for the erection of three terraced properties on land to the rear of 5 and 6 Northfields, Strensall. [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for the erection of three terraced properties to the rear of 5 and 6 Northfields.

Officers outlined to Members the history of applications on the site. They added that they had received a further five letters of objections since the report had been published. The letters highlighted that:

• The threatening tone of letters received from the applicants agent was not appreciated.
• The applicant admits that the properties will be family homes and not starter homes as previously described.
• That the car parking provision conflicts with the Council’s policy on Housing and Government advice on the maximum amount of parking space with cycle parking.
• The proposals for the planting of additional vegetation are a red herring and that the current design of parking is dangerous.

Members asked Officers to clarify the dimensions of the property and if this had changed from the previous applications.

Officers replied that the property which had a footprint of 16.5 metres x 8.5 metres had not changed from the original application.

Members highlighted that the one of the previous grounds for refusal was due to the proposed amount of hard standing. They questioned whether it was not better to alter the wording of the relevant condition to incorporate a porous surface. They also asked whether the changes to the General Permitted Development Order in 2008 included the regulation that areas of hardstanding that are less than 5 square metres in area could be constructed with a non permeable surface without planning permission.

Representations were received from a local resident, Mr Brown, in objection to the application. He stated his request for refusal was due to several reasons which were;

·        That there had been a misrepresentation of the property, in that with each application the property had changed the number of bedrooms.

·        That along with an increase in bedrooms, there had also been a decrease in the amount of parking spaces afforded to the property.

·        The overflow car parking would block access into Netherwoods.

·        The previous Officers report had said that the application would have a detrimental effect on the street scene.

Further Representations were received from Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council in objection to the application. The representative from the Parish Council stated that they were opposed due to the original application being used by the applicants to show that the current proposals were an improvement. He also highlighted the problems with parking that the proposal would create and stated that there was little imagination in the consideration of hedges in the application.

Further representations were heard from a local resident, Mr Chambers, in objection to the application. He said that although two of the rooms in the property were deemed to have been used as “work from home spaces” in the Officers report, that they would inevitably be used as additional bedrooms. He added that out of the 12 residents in neighbouring Netherwoods, 9 had written and registered objections with the Planning Officers. One resident from Northfields had also registered an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53d