Agenda item

This is a full application for the erection of a two storey live/work annex.

The application has been called in before committee by Cllr Doughty as he considered the application to be sensitive by virtue of the health condition of the occupant of the building.  [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Full Application by Mr and Mrs R Binns for the erection of a two storey live/work annex. (retrospective) (resubmission).

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent. He informed the Committee that the main reason for the construction of the annex was in order to provide support for the applicant’s son who had mental health problems. As a result of this, he felt that very special circumstances existed for Members to approve the application, even though it was located in the Green Belt. He also felt that the proposed demolition of the piggery would improve the openness of the site.

Additional representations of support were received from the Ward Member, Councillor Doughty, and these comments were circulated to Members at the meeting.

Some Members asked the applicant about what would happen to the annex if at any point their son did not inhabit the annex. In addition they asked whether the building would be demolished if the family no longer lived at the property.

The applicant responded that their son would not move out of the annex without the rest of the family moving away.

Officers suggested that it may be the application was approved that it would be beneficial to have a section 106 agreement in place in order to tie the main dwelling to the occupation of the annex. However, it was pointed out to Members that the accommodation under consideration was fully self contained and not physically linked to the house, and therefore could not be properly described as an annex.

During their debate, Members raised a number of issues including; that it was unfortunate that initial consultation with Planning Officers had not taken place before construction began, that they felt that the application was only a minor incursion into land that was located in the Draft Green Belt, that it would be possible to screen the development from the surrounding Green Belt and that approval of the application could set a precedent for other similar applications in the future.

RESOLVED:       That the application be refused.

REASON:           The proposed dwelling is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The circumstances provided for the justification for the proposed dwelling are not considered to represent very special circumstances and as such do not overcome the presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its siting and urban appearance is also considered to be out of keeping with the prevailing character and pattern of development in the area and leads to an encroachment of development and as such impacts adversely on the openness of the Green Belt. For these reasons the proposed dwelling is to be considered inappropriate development and is therefore contrary to Policies GB1 and GP2 of the City of York Council Development Control Local Plan (2005); Policy CS1 of the emerging CYC Core Strategy; Policy YH9 and Y1 of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008); and national planning advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 2 ‘Green Belts’ and Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’.