Agenda item

This outline application is for a residential development of 5 no. dwellings with associated garages and access (resubmission).

Councillor Ayre has called in the application for the Committee to determine on the grounds that it does not comply with Policy GP1 of the York Development Control Local Plan and conflicts with Policies NE1, NE8,GP9, GP4a) and H4a). [Heworth Without] [Site Visit]

Members considered an outline application by Mrs Janet Wheldon for a residential development 5no. dwellings with associated garages and access.

In their update to Members, Officers informed the Committee that since the previous application was refused, the Government had published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which had replaced Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes that had applied previously. Paragraph 49 of the  NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.   Relevant policies  for the supply of houses should not be considered up to date if the authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites.

They added that the recent appeal decision in respect of the York Grain Stores application at Water Lane, ruled that the Authority only had a 3.6 year supply of deliverable sites, so with this in mind Members would need to afford policies in the Draft Local Plan the appropriate weight.

In response to a Member’s question, Officers responded that in urban areas a target density of 40 dwellings per hectare was specified in the Local Plan, and confirmed that the density of the development was approximately 20 dwellings per hectare.

Representations in objection were received from a local resident. He gave three reasons for his objection; on the grounds of drainage difficulties, ecological benefits of the existing area of open space, and also that there had been in his view no significant changes to the previously rejected proposal.

In relation to drainage, he was concerned that the rate of release of surface water into the drainage system would be at an agricultural rate. He questioned whether there would be an increase in standing water on the site as a result of this. He stated that the proposed development would destroy an open area, which supported a variety of wildlife. He suggested that the proposal might be enhanced by the installation of a wildlife pond and a Tree Preservation Order for existing trees on the site. Finally, he felt that as the only change from the previous submitted application related to drainage, planning permission should again be refused.

Further representations in objection were received from another local resident. He felt that the proposed dwellings were not compatible with the style of the existing houses in the area and that the dwellings should only be of one storey height. He added that the largest tree on the site should be retained.

Representations in support were received from a representative of  the applicant’s agent. She clarified to Members that underground tanks would store surface water from the development and discharge it into existing water sewers at a controlled agricultural rate. This would be an improvement on the existing situation. Additionally, she considered that the status of the site as garden land did not preclude development and that the site was not being used and was in a sustainable location. She stated that the target density of 40 dwellings per hectare would result in 10 dwellings being built on the site, and therefore that in her view, the proposal for 5 dwellings would not constitute overdevelopment.

Further representations were received from Councillor Ayre, the Ward Member. He considered that the application was more or less unchanged since it was previously refused. Further to this he added that following the previous refusal, the applicant appealed to the Planning Inspector and was unsuccessful in their appeal and so he felt that the Committee should refuse it again. He considered that that the application ran contrary to a number of policies in the Council’s Draft Local Plan including H4a, GP1 and NE1. He also considered that the site should be retained in its current form, due to the ecological and other amenity benefits to local residents.

In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the applicant’s agent stated that the application site was private and that there was no public access.

In relation to concerns about traffic, some Members pointed out that the levels of traffic would obviously be different at various times of the day, that there would be additional traffic generation on the road at drop off and pick up time for the local primary school, and that this was essentially a traffic management issue. Councillor Ayre circulated a picture which showed cars parked on the road, which he included in his additional representation. This was circulated to Members at the meeting and was subsequently attached to the agenda which was re-published online after the meeting.

Officers were asked if the appeal from the applicant against the Committee’s previous refusal was determined. Officers responded that the Planning Inspector declined to determine the appeal due to a lack of information.

Some Members felt that there were some merits in the application, alongside some concerns. The merits included that if five properties were built on the site then this would constitute half the maximum density for that site as referenced in the local plan, that the garden area could be improved and that construction noise from the development could be controlled.

However, they also expressed a number of concerns including that they were aware that there was an existing surface water problem, due to the land being poorly drained. It was considered that the properties facing Whitby Drive should be single storey as conditioned in the Officer’s report, but those facing Stockton Lane could be two stories in height. An additional concern was that there were no double yellow lines on either Whitby Drive or Whitby Avenue to deal with problems that could be encountered from school traffic.

Other Members considered that the Committee should pay attention to Government policy of reclassifying garden land and refuse the application. They added that the same reasons from the previous refusal could be used, in order for the Planning Inspector to determine whether the correct decision had been made.

Some Members considered that if the application was approved, conditions should be added to the planning permission including; the approval of drainage details, that the properties adjacent to Whitby Drive be single storey only and that there should only be a maximum of five dwellings on site.

Councillor Warters requested that his vote against approval be recorded.

When being put to the vote, a motion for approval of the application was tied. As a result the Chair used her casting vote and it was:

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved with the following additional conditions;

10.    Development shall not begin until details of foul and surface water drainage works have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and carried out in accordance with these details.

Reason:     So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with these details for the proper drainage of the site.

11.              No more than five properties are to be erected as part of the development hereby authorised.

Reason:     To safeguard the visual amenity of the wider street scene and to ensure compliance with Policy GP1 of York Development Control Local Plan.

REASON:           In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to impact upon the visual amenity of the wider street scene, impact upon the local surface drainage pattern, impact of additional traffic generated upon the local highway network, impact of the proposal on local biodiversity and loss of an important open space of townscape value. As such the proposal complies to Policies GP15a), GP1, GP4a), GP9, GP10, H4a), NE1, NE7 and NE8 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.