Agenda item

It is proposed to demolish an existing single-storey outbuilding associated with Spring Hill House and erect in the approximate location a 5 bedroom two-storey dwelling with integral double garage. The application is brought to committee at the request of a Local Member as it is a submission of a previously refused application and is adjacent to Skelton Conservation Area. [Skelton, Rawcliffe, Clifton Without]

Members considered an application for the erection of a 5 bedroom two storey dwelling and integral double garage following the demolition of a single storey outbuilding associated with Spring Hill House.

Officers informed Members that the application had been called in by the local Ward Member, Councillor Watt due it being previously refused and being adjacent to the Skelton Conservation Area. They provided a current update on the reasons for refusal, in respect of their recommendation for approval. They stated that originally the reasons for refusal were;

• Lack of evidence to demonstrate that the site could not accommodate two dwellings, one of which would be “affordable”.
• Lack of evidence to demonstrate that the frontage hedge would not be damaged by the required sight lines.
• There was a lack of information on drainage for the property.

The Officers stated that the applicant had now provided satisfactory clarification on all three issues, hence the recommendation was now one of approval. In particular, the applicant had provided financial information which indicated that a development of two dwellings, with one affordable unit, would not be financially viable, and this had been verified by Housing officers. However, due to the sensitive nature of the information, it could not be made publicly available.

Some Members asked Officers for clarification as to where the money from the completion of a Section 106 agreement, guaranteeing off site open space provision, could be spent on specific projects. Officers stated that the money would normally be retained in a “pot” and spent in the area when specific deficiencies in open space provision were identified.

Councillor Moore moved that a decision be deferred until a site visit had been conducted. He felt that the new scheme for the application had not fully overcome the previous reasons for refusal. He added that although the Parish Council had not objected to the application, they also said that the new scheme had also not taken into account the previous reasons.

Councillor Taylor felt that to build two houses on the site would not be in keeping with the surrounding area.

Councillor Hyman moved the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Cregan seconded this approval and stated that he felt that the application did not merit a site visit.

Councillor Moore moved refusal of the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Pierce seconded this refusal. On being put to the vote this motion was lost.

Councillor Hyman also stated that he disagreed with the additional reasons for deferral and refusal because he felt that the application addressed the previous reasons for refusal, and was an appropriate use of the site.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

REASON:                  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the impact on the character of the area, the impact on the amenity and living conditions of adjacent occupiers, impact on trees and landscaping, quality of accommodation, density of development and affordable housing, highways and parking, sustainability, and drainage and flooding. As such the proposal complies with policies H5a, GP15, H2, H5, NE1, HE2, GP1, H4A.