Agenda item

This application is for the erection of a pair of semi-detached houses following demolition of an existing dormer bungalow.

Members considered an application for the erection of a pair of semi detached houses following the demolition of an existing dormer bungalow. This application had been amended from a previous application presented to the Committee in October 2009 and included an extension of the basement to incorporate a home office and additional storage space. The application had been brought to the committee by Councillor D’Agorne, as the Ward Member. He expressed concerns about the application relating to drainage, subsidence and multi occupancy and the precedents this would set.

Officers provided updated information at the meeting(full details of which are attached to the agenda for this item) relating to additional conditions which were not included in the report these were as follows:

• That a condition be added so that the basement level of the property, if approved, be restricted to avoid using the space as additional bedroom accommodation
• That a further condition be added to control the height of the development, ensuring that the existing ground level of the site be agreed in writing.

The updated information also provided additional comments from the applicant, in response to comments from local residents, responding to their points:

• That the application seeks to enable the implementation of a ‘sustainable homes’ planning condition.
• That the visual impact on the street scene remains the same
• That parking provision and density, which are key planning policies are complied with.
• That the application does not require a change of use for the site.
• That a requirement to obtain building regulations approval before granting planning permission would run contrary to the proper consideration of the application.
• That the planning authority has sufficient powers to introduce planning conditions to address any legitimate concerns that local residents might have,

Representations in opposition were heard from a local resident, Mr Farrant. He spoke about how he had major concerns about the application and stated that the depth of the basement proposed at 4 Derwent Road, would undermine the foundations of the immediate neighbouring properties at 2 and 6 Derwent Road. He questioned why there had been not been a hydrological study carried out on the site in relation to this. He suggested that the working hours of construction should be reduced from the times suggested on Monday to Friday from 8:00-18:00 to 8:00-17:00. Finally, he suggested that the new application should also focus on daylight provision in relation to the development of the basement.

Representations in support were heard from the applicant, Mr Breeze. He commented how he was seeking amended consent to address a condition relating to sustainable homes. He stated that the application was not for multi occupancy, and that if it was, then he would have to apply for further approval.

Councillor Cregan asked the applicant whether he would be willing to alter the hours of construction from 8:00-17:00.

The applicant responded that he was happy to alter them.

Councillor Taylor asked Officers to explain what the potential effects that this application would have on the foundations of neighbouring properties.

Officers replied that the Health and Safety Executive requires all planning applications to ensure that the building is safe and complies with the Party Wall Act.  Additionally the application was situated in a low flood risk area.

Councillor Moore asked whether any comments had been received from the Council’s Archaeologist in relation to the proposal.

Officers responded that they had contacted John Oxley prior to the meeting and he had confirmed that the site was not within an area of archaeological importance and that he did not require an archaeological watching brief condition to be attached.

Councillor Moore also stated that he was surprised that no consultation appeared to have taken place within the Council’s Structures and Drainage Officers(Engineering Consultancy.)

Officers replied that the application did not include additional development outside of the footprint of the existing building, and thus would not result in any additional surface water drainage issues. They added that the application had been discussed with the Environment Agency, who had confirmed that they had no major concerns. In particular, there were no flood risk issues in this area of York, and depth of the basement would be well above the level of any underlying aquifer.

Councillor Moore asked the applicant to clarify the depth of the basement and any associated foundations.

The applicant’s builder, who was in attendance, replied that the proposed basement would be approximately 12 inches below the level of the basement. It would be approximately 2.5 metres below the level of standard foundations.

Councillor Brian Watson asked whether the  provision of additional accommodation in the basement could result in an additional bedroom being created on the ground floor.

Officers replied that this situation could arise, but also stated that it was unlikely that additional living accommodation would be created in the basement due to lack of external windows.

Councillor Cregan moved the Officer’s recommendation for approval and stated that if the property was being used as a House of Multiple Occupancy(HMO) it would require another planning application.

Councillor Brian Watson seconded the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Taylor commented that if new conditions was added preventing the use of the basement as bedrooms, then the possibility of the property becoming an HMO would be highly unlikely. He added that the issues with the foundations and groundwater would be dealt with by Building Control Officers. Finally he welcomed the offer of restricting the construction hours from 8:00-17:00.

Councillor Hyman questioned whether the application could be delegated to Officers to make the decision and whether it would be appropriate to add an archaeological watching brief condition as had been suggested by Councillor Moore.

Officers expressed concerns to Members that if such a condition was unnecessary, it would result in an unjustified additional financial burden on the developers.

Councillor Cregan commented that the application was sited on former meadow land and that an archaeological condition would be seen as unreasonable in this respect.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the additional paper circulated by Officers at the meeting.

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 amenity, sustainability, flood risk, highway safety and impact on local services. As such the proposal complies with Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport and Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk and policies SP6, GP1, GP4A, GP15A, H3C, H4A, H5A and T4 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.