Agenda and minutes

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

At this point in the meeting, Members were asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests that they might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Cuthbertson declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4a) as the Ward Member who called in the application for consideration by the Committee. He informed Members that he had met local residents, but had not expressed an opinion on the application.

Councillor Richardson declared a personal interest as the Ward Member and also that he had called in the application along with Councillor Cuthbertson. He also declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the item as when he had met with local residents, he had expressed an opinion on the application. He withdrew from the meeting during the discussion of this item.

No other interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 3 May 2012.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the meeting of the East Area Planning Sub-Committee held on 3 May 2012 be signed and approved by the Chair as a correct record.

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 requestedto contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Wednesday 6 June 2012 at 5.00 pm.

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.

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.

This full application is for two storey rear and single storey rear extensions.

This application has been brought before East Area Planning Sub-Committee for a decision by Councillors Richardson and Cuthbertson due to concerns made by local residents. [Haxby and Wigginton] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Horsman for two storey rear and single storey side and rear extensions.

Members received a drawing from Officers, which illustrated the development that could take place at the property under permitted development rights, without the need for planning permission. All of the Committee felt that this was particularly useful to help them determine the application, and suggested that if possible, similar drawings be presented at future meetings.

Members raised two questions to Officers about how the extensions related to the building line, adjacent properties  and the reasons for consideration by the Committee.

It was reported that the extension would encroach beyond the building line at the rear of the property, but that separation distances to properties in Abelton Grove exceeded minimum standards. It was also noted that the application had been brought for Members’ consideration because of the close proximity of the first floor of the two storey extension to the neighbouring property.

Representations in objection were received from the immediate next door neighbour. She was concerned that the proposed side extension would encroach over the boundary of number 10 Old Orchard, and that access to the rear of the property to enable construction work to take place and protection of the drains had not been outlined by the applicant. Further to this she felt that the size of the proposed extensions would adversely affect adjacent residents, particularly in the winter months, due to loss of light.

Members asked the neighbour how the ground floor extension would be detrimental to her property. She responded that the extension would leave her with a lack of privacy due to the difference in height between the two storey house , and that the boundary would also only be maintained by a low fence.

Some Members felt that the application should be approved as the extension at the first floor was relatively small, and the ground floor extension would not be visible from the ground floor of the neighbouring property.

The Chair allowed Councillor Richardson, who had taken no part in the discussion due to his declaration of interest, to speak. He felt that there was an existing drainage problem that had not been addressed. He stated that it was particularly problematic in that a number of drains in the area did not appear on maps.

Officers informed Members that under permitted development rights, the applicant could build over the drains and that this was a matter to be resolved under Building Regulations or with Yorkshire Water, as appropriate.

Some Members felt that drainage concerns were not an issue to be considered as part of the planning process. Others were concerned that the development could distort the line of the neighbouring properties, and that the extensions would not fit in with the surrounding properties.

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved.

REASON:           In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report, would not cause undue harm to interests  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a

This outline application is for a residential development of 5 no. dwellings with associated garages and access (resubmission).

Councillor Ayre has called in the application for the Committee to determine on the grounds that it does not comply with Policy GP1 of the York Development Control Local Plan and conflicts with Policies NE1, NE8,GP9, GP4a) and H4a). [Heworth Without] [Site Visit]

Members considered an outline application by Mrs Janet Wheldon for a residential development 5no. dwellings with associated garages and access.

In their update to Members, Officers informed the Committee that since the previous application was refused, the Government had published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which had replaced Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes that had applied previously. Paragraph 49 of the  NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.   Relevant policies  for the supply of houses should not be considered up to date if the authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites.

They added that the recent appeal decision in respect of the York Grain Stores application at Water Lane, ruled that the Authority only had a 3.6 year supply of deliverable sites, so with this in mind Members would need to afford policies in the Draft Local Plan the appropriate weight.

In response to a Member’s question, Officers responded that in urban areas a target density of 40 dwellings per hectare was specified in the Local Plan, and confirmed that the density of the development was approximately 20 dwellings per hectare.

Representations in objection were received from a local resident. He gave three reasons for his objection; on the grounds of drainage difficulties, ecological benefits of the existing area of open space, and also that there had been in his view no significant changes to the previously rejected proposal.

In relation to drainage, he was concerned that the rate of release of surface water into the drainage system would be at an agricultural rate. He questioned whether there would be an increase in standing water on the site as a result of this. He stated that the proposed development would destroy an open area, which supported a variety of wildlife. He suggested that the proposal might be enhanced by the installation of a wildlife pond and a Tree Preservation Order for existing trees on the site. Finally, he felt that as the only change from the previous submitted application related to drainage, planning permission should again be refused.

Further representations in objection were received from another local resident. He felt that the proposed dwellings were not compatible with the style of the existing houses in the area and that the dwellings should only be of one storey height. He added that the largest tree on the site should be retained.

Representations in support were received from a representative of  the applicant’s agent. She clarified to Members that underground tanks would store surface water from the development and discharge it into existing water sewers at a controlled agricultural rate. This would be an improvement on the existing situation. Additionally, she considered that the status of the site as garden land did not preclude development and that the site was not being used and was in a sustainable location. She stated that the target density of 40 dwellings per hectare would result in 10 dwellings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b