Agenda item

One dormer bungalow with attached double garage on land to rear of The Villa. [Revised Scheme] [Site Visit] [Wheldrake Ward]

Members considered a full application, submitted by Mr and Mrs Lofthouse, for the erection of one dormer bungalow with attached double garage on land to the rear of The Villa (revised scheme).

Officers updated that they had received 4 additional letter of objection but only 2 were new objections raising similar objections of overdevelopment, impact on neighbours and objections to the removal of trees.

Representations were received in objection to the application from a neighbour who referred to the trees on the southern boundary of the site a number of which had already been removed. The trees provided screening for 5 months of the year but with their removal this would be lost and there would be little separation between his property and the proposed dormer bungalow. He felt that the scale of the new property would have a detrimental impact on neighbours and requested Members to support refusal of the application. He also circulated photographs showing the separation distance.

Representations in objection were also received from a further neighbour who confirmed that she was opposed to the backland development which she felt would erode the rural setting of the village. She stated that the proposed bungalow would tower above neighbouring gardens.

Representations were also received from the Chair of Elvington Parish Council but in his personal capacity as a neighbour.

Representations were received in support of the application from the applicant’s agent who referred to the application for a 3 bed dormer bungalow approved by the Sub-Committee in September 2007. He stated that this was a similar scheme but with an increased ridge height, an additional room at the rear and a double rather than a single garage, which he felt, was not a significant change from the earlier application. He confirmed that the property would be south facing and would have sufficient natural light. Regarding the trees he felt that the building could co exist with trees on site and he would be happy to have this conditioned.  

Members commented that they felt the revised scheme was oppressive, over dominant and would have a major impact on neighbours. They requested addition to the reasons for refusal of reference to the lack of garden space and the affect the property would have on the amenity of neighbours.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:     1. The proposed dwelling would be materially larger and bulkier than that approved in September 2007.  It is considered that the building would be located in such close proximity to the rear gardens of Grange House, 3 Lorraine Avenue and Middleton House that the development would appear unduly dominant and oppressive when viewed from these properties and have a detrimental impact on the established character and amenity of the local environment.  As such the proposal fails to comply with Policy GP1 (criterion b and I), Policy GP10 and Policy H4a of the City of York Local Plan 4th Set of Changes 2005.

                    2.             The proposed application fails to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling can co-exist with the existing trees that surround the site.  It is considered that the removal of the trees would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area and adversely affect neighbours' privacy and outlook.  As such the proposal fails to comply with Policy GP1 (criterion a, c and d), Policy GP10 and Policy H4a of the City of York Local Plan 4th Set of Changes 2005

3. The proposed dwelling would be located in very close proximity to trees that border the south and west of the site.  It is considered that this would result in the proposed dwelling have an unacceptably poor level of natural light, sunlight or outlook.  As such the proposal fails to comply with Policy GP1 (criterion b and j) of the City of York Local Plan 4th Set of Changes 2005.

 4. The very limited and disjointed proposed external amenity space is considered inadequate to meet the needs of the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.  As such the proposal conflicts with criterion (g) ofGP1 of the City of York Local Plan First Alteration 2005 and advice contained within paragraphs 16 and 17 of Planning Policy Statement 3.