Agenda item

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 objection.

Councillor Kirk spoke as the Ward Member and said that she agreed with the comments received from the neighbours in relation to an increase in bedrooms and decrease in the parking space around the property. She finally added that she felt that the application would be detrimental to the area as it failed to respect the existing character of Netherwoods.

Officers informed Members that the appearance of proposed property would be unchanged, and that the only change would be that it would consist of three units rather than one as originally approved.

Members added that the fact that parking standards are referred to as maximum figures had restricted any objections on the grounds of lack of car parking.

Officers advised Members that they should be minded to refuse the application, the reasons for refusal should be a combination of the previous reasons for refusal and the appeal decision in relation to the previous application. It was agreed that the exact wording of the reasons would be agreed between the Chair, Vice Chair and Area Team Leader.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:                  It is considered that the proposal would constitute an over - intensive form of development occupying almost the full frontage of the site, necessitating car parking being located to the front of the dwellings, resulting in a harsh and incongruous street frontage relative to the remainder of the street. It is considered that the quantity and quality of the landscaping interspersed with areas of hardsurfacing would fail to respect the character, appearance and visual distinctiveness of the area, which to a significant extent is defined by the quality of the landscaped setting of the dwellings. As a consequence, the proposed development is not considered to be appropriate to the character or appearance of the area and is, therefore, contrary to Central Government advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 1: "Delivering Sustainable Development", Planning Policy Statement 3 "Housing" and policies H4a, GP1 and GP10 of the City of York Draft Local Plan (Incorporating the Fourth Set of Changes) (2005).