Agenda item

Erection of detached two-storey dwelling with front and rear dormer windows to side of 39 St Pauls Square. Alterations to existing front wall / railing to create access to 2no. car parking spaces. (revised scheme).  [Holgate Ward]

Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs Gardiner, for the erection of a detached two-storey dwelling with front and rear dormer windows to the side of 39 St Pauls Square, with alterations to the existing front wall/railing to create access to two parking spaces.

Officers advised Members that the application was identical to the application considered in August 2010 except for the breach in the boundary wall and the creation of two onsite parking spaces enclosed by gates. They stated that a further letter of objection had been received from the occupants of 39 St. Paul’s Square objecting to the proposal on the grounds that there would be a loss of on street parking spaces in order to create access for off street parking, that the creation of onsite parking with hard landscaping would harm the character of the conservation area and that the requirement for significant retaining walls to create the parking spaces would be detrimental to the building at no 40. They advised that a letter had also been received from St Paul’s Square Association which reiterated their views that the proposals represented overdevelopment of the site and suggested a smaller dwelling would be more appropriate. They also raised concerns about the aesthetics of the house due to it being detached at the end of a terrace and also about the potential damage that may be caused to foundations on either side.

Representations were received from a local resident representing St Paul’s Square Association, in objection to the application. He advised that they had no objections in principal to the design of the building but that it was due to the design approach taken that problems with parking and foundations were evident. He stated that the proposals should be reconsidered and suggested that a more sensible solution would be for a smaller property located at one side of the site which, if set further forward, would allow more room for the provision of parking and a garden at the rear of the site with a driveway down the other side of the site for access.

Representations were received from the architect/agent in support of the application. He reminded Members that the initial application had been refused in August 2010 on the basis that it would result in an increased demand for on-street parking. He stated that he had taken on Members concerns raised and in response to these, the new proposals included two onsite parking spaces enclosed by wrought iron gates to match the railings. With regard to the suggestion put forward by the previous speaker, he advised that creation of a side driveway would require a considerable amount of excavation along the boundary to no 40  and the engineering works would be disproportionate to the result therefore the only option for onsite parking was at the front of the property.

Councillor Moore moved and Councillor Morley seconded a motion to refuse the application on the grounds that there was not sufficient space in which to park and manoeuvre vehicles within the parking area. On being put to the vote, the motion fell.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved and delegation be given to officers, in liaison with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee, to determine the necessary conditions.

REASON:                  The proposal, subject to conditions, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to:- the principle of the development; sustainability; impact on conservation area; affect on residential amenity; highway safety; flood risk and drainage; and impact on local facilities. As such the proposal complies with Central Government guidance in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3: Housing, PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment and PPS25: Development and Flood Risk and policies GP1, GP4A, GP10, GP15A, HE2, HE11, T4, H4A, H5A and L1C of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.