Agenda item

This application seeks planning permission for a detached two storey dwelling and detached single garage within the rear garden of 29 Church Street, Dunnington, accessed off Eastfield Lane. Amended plans were submitted on 13th July 2009 showing minor alterations to the design of the dwelling house and the siting of the garage. [Derwent] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for a detached two-storey dwelling and detached single garage within the rear garden of 29 Church Street, Dunnington, accessed off Eastfield Lane.

Officers updated Members by stating that the agent for the applicant had submitted a Sustainability Statement in support of the application, which covered the existing character, social context, design crime, sustainability, landscaping, and accessibility.  They also added that the applicant was willing to accept conditions requiring a minimum of Code for Sustainable Houses Level 3 to be achieved and also the provision of 5% of total energy demand from on-site renewable sources.

Officers added that Paragraph 4.15 on page 27 of the officer’s report should be replaced by Design Guideline 9 of the Dunnington Village Design Statement to read: “The preservation of open spaces within the village, such as allotments, common land at the end of cul-de-sacs and Manor Drive, should be encouraged, including the retention of larger garden plots. Subdivision should only be granted where it is not detrimental to the character and amenity of the local environment.”

Representations in opposition were heard from an adjacent neighbour who stated that the size and scale of the development had made her oppose the application.  She informed Members that her other concerns included a loss of privacy by the fact that a boundary fence was not included in the proposal and that the application would detract from the rural setting of the surrounding area.

Councillor Brooks spoke as Ward Member and expressed her concerns regarding the application. She stated that the Parish Council felt that previous objections to the proposal had not been addressed and in particular the proximity of the access road for the proposed building to 15 Garden Flats Lane.  She added that there would be an increase in users of the access road and therefore noise, would which lead to a loss of privacy for adjacent neighbours, if the application was approved. Finally, she stated that the current access to the property was of historical importance and that the new access would detract from this because of the loss of the hedgerows. She urged Members to refuse the application on the grounds that it would detract from the rural setting and that if they did approve the application that they would be ignoring the Dunnington Village Design Statement.

Members queried with officers the location and ownership of the adjacent hedgerows on the proposed site. Officers informed Members that the hedgerow at the far end of the site was not owned by the applicant and that the application did include the removal of this hedge.

Members stated that they were opposed to the application for a variety of reasons. Firstly, that the proposed development was in very close proximity to the properties on Stockhill Close.  Secondly, that the boundary hedge, which is the same length as the site, would have to be removed to allow for the widening and construction of the new access road.  Thirdly, that the proposed building would be built on a raised platform which would mean that the footings would be at the same height as the adjacent neighbour’s property.  This would then allow each house to overlook one another leading to a loss of privacy. Finally, Members decided that the development did conflict with the Dunnington Village Design Statement.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.¹

REASON:      (i) The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its size, scale and location close to boundary with numbers 3 and 4 Stockhill Close, be overbearing and over-dominant to the detriment of the outlook, amenity and privacy of the adjacent occupiers. As such, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1 (“Delivering Sustainable Development”).

(ii)               The proposal would, by reason of its location, size and design result in an incongruous form of development that would be out of scale and character with the area. It is considered this proposed backland development would seriously detract from the quality and semi-rural undeveloped character which is enjoyed at this location within Dunnington Conservation Area. The proposal is considered contrary to Central Government advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15

(“Planning and the Historic Environment”) and Policies GP1, GP10 and HE2 of the City of York Draft Local Plan.