Agenda item

Replacement dwelling with detached summerhouse to rear.

[Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs Griffiths for a replacement dwelling with detached summerhouse to the rear.

Officers advised the committee of a further request they had received from the occupants of 20 The Horseshoe which asked for:

·        In addition to obscured side windows, the roof lights and windows of the summer house should be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking. Officers recommended clarifying condition 5 so it refers to the side window on the 2 storey outshot and roof-lights on the side elevations of the main roof.

·        Permitted development rights should be removed to prevent any later extensions to the building Officers noted that the garden would remain a reasonable size and officers consider such a condition would not be necessary.

·        Construction Management should be a condition of the planning permission rather than an informative, in the interests of neighbours’ amenity. Officers advised that Members may add a condition on construction management if they see fit.

·        The street light may need to be removed to accommodate the additional driveway. The neighbours would not want the street light to be relocated in front of their house. Officers advised that this would be a matter for interested parties to resolve.

Representations were received from Councillor Hodgson, Ward Member for Dringhouses and Woodthorpe. He stated that he was speaking against the application on behalf of the residents at 17 and 19 the Horseshoe. He conveyed their concerns that the proposed building would be out of character with the area, raised concerns with building traffic (potential loss of building materials) and potential flooding. He asked the committee to reject the application for the benefit of nearby residents and the wider community. Members queried whether these concerns related to the original scheme rather than the revised scheme and noted that, at the site visit, the Chair of the Planning Panel had not raised any concerns on the revised scheme. Councillor Hodgson confirmed that the points he had raised applied to the original plans but that he was still opposed to the demolition and rebuilding of a house which would then be out of character with the area.

Representations were received from the applicant in support of the application. He explained that he had bought the house which was very run down and in need to extensive modernisation and this meant it was more economic to demolish it and rebuild it to current standards. He confirmed that he had worked with planners to address concerns raised by residents concerns and the revised plans now meet their concerns. This included removing the decorative stone and slate roof from the proposals so the property is more in keeping with other properties on the Horseshoe. He advised that all the adjacent neighbours except number 20 were supportive of his proposals. He acknowledged that the mass and scale of the proposed property was large but that it was comparable with number 24 and barely half the size of number 20. He stated that the rear extension incorporated a home study for his wife who works from home and the property would not overlook other properties, although rear and side windows were to be mainly obscured glass. He explained that where possible they would reuse existing roof tiles for the front of the house, that extensive greenery was proposed and that the dual aspect driveway required moving lamppost by approx 2ft and he had suggested this be towards the boundary of his property. In response to a question, he provided clarification of the floor space of the existing and proposed property and how this compared to his neighbour’s property.

Members acknowledged residents concerns regarding development based on experiences of what had happened with a neighbouring plot. However they agreed that the applicant had done everything possible to mitigate the concerns of neighbours and that the revised proposals would enhance rather than detract from the street scene. They agreed that it would be useful to include a condition on working hours.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Amended Condition 5

The first floor windows in the side elevations (including the room shown as 'dressing room' on drawing D384/5G) and roof-lights on the side elevations of the main roof (i.e. where the building is 2-storey) shall be obscure glazed to a minimum level of Pilkington Glass Level 3 (or the equivalent standard) and once installed shall be thus maintained at all times.

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of occupants of adjacent residential properties.

Additional Condition 9

The hours of construction, loading or unloading on the site shall be confined to 8:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 13:00 Saturday and no working on Sundays or public holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent residents.

REASON;                  The proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amended and additional conditions above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the effect on residential amenity, the impact on the streetscene,  flood risk and highway safety.  As such the proposal complies with Policy GP1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.