Agenda item

The application seeks planning permission to erect a three-bedroom detached bungalow in what is currently part of the rear gardens of 291 and 293 Fifth Avenue.  The bungalow would front Appleby Place.  Two car parking spaces are proposed to serve the property.[Heworth] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for the erection of a three bedroomed detached bungalow located in part of the rear gardens of 291 and 293 Fifth Avenue.

Councillor Cregan left the meeting at this point and was not present for this item along with subsequent items, 4f, Nestlé Rowntree, 5 Appeals Performance and 6 Urgent Business.

Officers updated Members by saying that Heworth Planning Panel and the Environmental Protection Unit had no objections to the application. They stated that there had been no response from the Drainage Board but that the proposal incorporated advice given by the Council’s Drainage Engineers at the pre-application stage, and includes provision for on-site storage and controlled discharge of surface water, permeable surfacing and rainwater harvesting, all of which were covered in condition 9.

Officers reported that representations in the form of 20 letters of objection from residents and a petition signed by 30 people against the application had been received.  They stated that the main concerns from residents were that the application would;

• Infringe on their security on Appleby Place through creating an access way into Fifth Avenue, which could then create a hiding place for criminals.
• The building works would create stress and disturbance to the elderly residents who occupy the houses in Appleby Place.
• The proposal could result in additional flooding and congestion in Appleby Place.
• The proposal could block access for emergency vehicles.
• The house could be occupied by students or children whose lifestyles could conflict with elderly residents desire for peace and quiet.
• The proposal would result in a loss of a parking area used by local residents
• It would harm privacy and dormers could be added in the future and that infill development would be contrary to Council Policy. 

Officers also stated that a representation in opposition had been received from Councillor Potter, as the local Ward Member, who suggested that the Committee should not delegate the decision to Officers in light of numerous representations of opposition from residents. She also advised that residents felt that the application was overdevelopment.

Members were told by Officers that the consultation period for the application expires on 18 September and the reason for why the application had been brought to Committee was to ensure that a decision was made within the 8 week period.  They added that negotiations had resulted in a revised drawing, which made relatively minor charges to the proposal through the introduction of hipped roofs and alterations to the parking arrangements. They advised that Officers intentions were to issue the decision under delegated powers (if approved) only if no new objections are received to the proposal.

They referred to condition 11 which required a financial contribution for Lifelong Learning and Leisure towards the provision of play facilities and open space. They also drew Members attention to the addition of restricted hours of work and stated that the standard demolition and construction informative could also be attached.

Officers also stated that condition 10 was incorrectly worded and should refer to the Code for Sustainable Homes rather than the equivalent BREAM standard.

They added to Members that a further condition would be recommended requiring the provision of 5 % of the expected energy demand through renewable sources, in order to comply with Policy GP4a and the Council’s interim Planning Statement on Sustainable Design and Construction.

They also stated that condition 13 would remove permitted development rights in respect of future extensions to the dwelling, including roof alterations.

In response to a question, Officers stated that if a decision to approve the application was delegated to officers, the application would be brought back to Committee for a decision in the event that any additional new objections were received prior to the expiry date for consultations on the 18^th September.

Some Members expressed concern that the proposed bungalow would erode the amenity of local residents due to its close proximity and the effect on access that it would have for Appleby Place.  They also expressed the view that it would be an overdevelopment of the site.  They added that on the site visit, the applicant had originally pegged out the proposed site incorrectly, and then relocated the pegs to correct this.  Some Members stated that they were mindful of the proximity of the children’s play equipment to the proposed property, whilst others pointed out that although there were concerns relating to the access of the site, that Highways Officers had raised no objections to the proposal.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused. ¹

REASON:                  1. It is considered that the proposed bungalow together with the reduction in size of the rear gardens of 293 and 295 Fifth Avenue would constitute an unacceptable overdevelopment of an unsuitably small site. It is considered that this would result in a form of development that would appear cramped and out of character with the local form of development. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policies GP1 (criterion a and b), GP10 and H4a (criterion c) of the City of York Draft Local Plan (fourth set of changes) 2005, and Central Government advice relating to design quality and context contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and Planning Policy Statement  (Housing).

                                    2.The proposed bungalow would be sited in close proximity to the rear gardens of the adjacent properties. It is considered that the bungalow would appear unduly dominant and overbearing when viewed from these rear gardens and thus be harmful to the amenity of the occupiers of these properties. As such the proposal would conflict with Policy GP1 (criterion I) of the City of York Draft Local Plan (Fourth Set of Changes) 2005.