Agenda item

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of four dwellings with associated gardens, new site access and pond extension.

This revised application has been brought before East Area Planning Sub-Committee at the request of Councillor Brooks on the grounds of highway safety and inappropriate and uncharacteristic development density at the entrance to the village. [Derwent]

Members considered a full application from MDL Land Ltd and Mrs K Wheater for the erection of four dwellings with associated garages, new site access and a pond extension.

Officers reminded the Committee that this application had been deferred at the last meeting in order to allow further work to be undertaken to find a more suitable location for the access road further away from the bridge than had been proposed. Officers explained that by moving the access road, plots 1 and 2 were now 1m further to the east and had bigger gardens and a larger turning area in front of the garages.

Officers advised Members that Highway Network Management had no objections to the revised layout and had made no other comments other than to reiterate previous comments and those of the applicant’s highway consultants that the access meets national safety and design criteria and therefore a refusal on these grounds could not be substantiated.

Officers also advised that three letters of objection had been received from local residents. These did not raise any additional comments to those contained within the committee report under paragraph 3.11. The major concerns raised within the three letters were of the access and its perceived lack of safety for motorists, the danger the new access could cause to pedestrians using York Street and the loss of a pleasant green environment.

Representations were received from the Chair of the Dunnington Village Design Statement Group. She reminded Members of the issues she had raised at the last meeting and circulated a copy of her previous representation to those Members who had not be present at the last meeting. She reminded the Committee that the road in front of 97 York Street was in the conservation area and that the Village Design Statement was opposed to the  subdivision of garden plots. With regard to concerns over drainage, she stated that after heavy rain, pools of water collected on the road, which is heavily used by cars and buses with cycle route 66 running through the village too. She advised Members that the bridge was used by pedestrians, including school children and a new housing development would create extra danger for those children who have to negotiate an already dangerous junction.

Representations were also received from the agent in support of the application. He advised the Committee that if the access road was directly in front of no 97, officers would recommend refusal due to loss of residential amenity and they were constrained by how far to the east the access could be moved. He confirmed that in the new position, the access was 22m in excess of the min requirements. He pointed out that the applicant had agreed to the provision of additional signage and this was covered by a condition. With regard to the Village Design Statement, he confirmed that pitched roofs would respect existing roof heights and the choice of materials would be sympathetic to existing materials and there would be no harm to the character and setting of the conservation area. In response to a question as to whether there was an accident history for this stretch of road, the applicant’s transport consultant confirmed there were no recorded personal injury accidents on that part of the road.

Councillor Brooks spoke as Ward Member for Dunnington. She asked Members to take account of the Village Design Statement with regard to the subdivision of garden plots. She stressed that road safety was of paramount concern given that there was data to prove that motorists exceed the speed limit both entering and leaving the village. She asked Members to make it a condition that warning signs are erected on the road, if they decided to approve the application. She warned that school children use the bridge and have to cross the road and noted that there were two bus stops the other side of the bridge.

Members acknowledged the guidance contained in the Village Design Statement but noted that this was an advisory rather than a statutory document.

Some Members raised concerns about the proximity of the pond to the development due to the existence of great crested newts in the area and expressed disappointment that Natural England had not been consulted on the application. Officers advised that the Council’s Ecologist/Countryside Officer and Countryside Assistant have visited and assessed the site with regard to this issue. Officers confirmed that due to the presence of great crested newts on the site, a licence was required from Natural England to carry out the development before the development could commence and they explained that this licence would cover the management and maintenance of the habitat.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions listed in the report.

REASON:                  The proposal, subject to a 106 agreement and the conditions listed in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the principle of development; the density, design and visual impact including the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area; the  impact on neighbouring amenity; access and highway safety; sustainability; ecology; drainage and open space, affordable housing and education provision. As such the proposal complies with the overall aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies GP1, GP4a, GP9, GP10, NE6, NE7, HE2, H4a, H5a, and L1c of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.