Agenda item

This application seeks major outline consent for a residential development of 10 dwellings with all matters reserved except access and layout. [Strensall] [Site Visit] 

Members considered an outline major application for a residential development of 10 dwellings.

In their update to Members, Officers reported that an objection had been received from the local MP who felt that the development would be out of character with the local area and asked for any extensions to be restricted to a height of two storeys. It was stated that the development would remove a number of protected trees, but that the Council’s Tree Officer felt that the trees in question were of limited amenity. Officers also stated that if approved, that they recommended that a drainage condition be added to include a topographical survey and a maintenance plan.

Members asked several questions to Officers relating to the trees on site including; if the proposed trees would adequately screen the dwellings from the road and if Tree Protection Orders (TPO) could be placed on these. Officers suggested to Members, that it was practice to be cautious when listing trees as TPOs. Other Members asked questions regarding stipulations from Network Rail on the site’s boundary being adjacent to a railway line and why there was no provision made for social housing on the site.

Representations in objection were received from a representative of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). He stated that the CPRE objected to application due to the detrimental effect on the conservation area. He stated that to allow for the screening of the development that the undergrowth would have to be disturbed and that this could detrimentally affect all the trees.

Representations in objection were received from a local resident, he stated that he wished that the applicant would clarify the height properties and was concerns that the garage at plot number 5 in the development could unsettle the foundations of the trees in his garden.

Representations in support were received from the applicant’s agent. He spoke about the density of the development on the site and stated that the national guidance was for 20 units per hectare, rather than the 10 proposed. He clarified that all the properties would have a height of two storeys apart from a terrace of three properties, facing on to Princess Road, which would be 2.5 storeys tall. He felt that there would be no adverse impact on the trees on the site because of the low density of the development, but stated that the applicant would plant new trees if the application was approved.

Representations were received from a member of Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council. He wished for clarification on the height of the properties facing on to Princess Road, as the Officer’s report had stated that they would be three storeys but the applicant had stated 2.5 storeys. The Officer stated that the reference in the report referred to accommodation possibly being designed on three floors, rather than three storeys. He also spoke about how there was a lack of amenity space at the back of the properties and that the Conservation Area extended on to the boundary of the site.

Representations were received from the Ward Member, Councillor Doughty. He felt that the placing of the gable end of the properties on to the railway side would appear awkwardly dominant. He also commented that because the rear elevations of the properties would now face Princess Road, that refuse bins would clearly be visible by neighbours. He also felt that the site could benefit from more greenery.

In response to their questions, Members were informed by Officers that a grass verge would be covered in tarmac to allow for a pedestrian crossing, and that they could not confirm how many trees would be lost from the site. In addition, it was reported that Officers were satisfied that the trees that had been picked for felling were easily replaceable.

Some Members felt that the application should be approved because the size of the development had reduced from previous applications and that it would be screened by existing trees.

Other Members commented on how they felt that there would be insufficient amenity space for three of the proposed properties, and that there would be a detrimental impact on the retained trees.

RESOLVED:       That the application be refused.

REASON:    (i)    The proposed terraced houses (units 8,9 and 10) would, by reason of their, height, massing and prominent location towards the front of the site, result in an incongruous form of development out of scale and character with the street scene and harmful to the setting of the adjacent conservation area. This harm would be exacerbated by the houses’ main amenity space being located at the front of the site, which would be likely to result in the gardens being used for the storage and use of domestic paraphernalia typically associated with residential use (such as sheds, washing lines and play equipment) that could not reasonably be controlled by planning conditions. The application therefore contrary to national planning policy guidance PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and Planning Policy Statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment), and Policies GP1 (Design), GP10 (Subdivision of gardens and Infill Development) and HE2 (Development in Historic Locations) of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft.

(ii)                         The development would be likely to result in the removal of a number of trees that significantly contribute to the visual amenity of the area and are subject to a Tree Preservation Order, without providing adequate compensatory replacement. The loss would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene and the setting of the adjacent conservation area. The application is therefore contrary to policies NE1 (Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows), HE2 (Development in Historic Locations) and GP10 (Subdivision of Gardens) of the City of York Draft Local Plan.

(iii)                        The proposed layout would provide inadequate private amenity space for the terraced houses at units 8, 9 and 10, with very limited space to the rear of the three storey family dwellings. The area to the front would be open, due to the street frontage location and the need to safeguard mature protected trees (which would limit natural daylight to this area). The development would not therefore provide an adequate standard of amenity for the prospective occupants so the application is contrary to policy GP1 (Design) of the City of York Draft Local Plan, which states that development proposals will be expected to, inter alia, provide and protect private, individual or communal amenity space for residential and commercial developments.