Agenda item

Erection of dormer bungalow to rear (resubmission). [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr M Blacklee for the erection of a dormer bungalow to rear (resubmission).

In their update to Members, Officers reported the following;

·        An error in their report regarding to an objection being made from 14 York Road, this was from 18 York Road.

·        An additional letter had been received from the occupants of 5 St Mary’s Close who objected on the grounds of the impact on the conservation area, loss of light, outlook and privacy from neighbouring houses.

·        The applicants had now offered to obscure glaze the only first storey window on the south elevation of the proposed house, to reduce overlooking of neighbouring houses. However, occupants of the bedroom would retain an outlook from the west. Members could add a condition for an obscured glazed window, if they were minded to approve the application.

·        Objections from the Council’s Flood Risk Engineer had been removed as suitable new drainage details had been provided. A new drainage condition could be added if Members were minded to approve the application to ensure that drainage details are approved and implemented.

Questions from Members to Officers related to the density of the building and surface water flooding, in particular whether the new drainage details would solve flooding in the vicinity.

Officers reported that the size and scale of the properties in the area were varied. They  confirmed  that the newly submitted drainage details from the applicant would not solve the problem for adjacent sites, but that  it would release surface water run off at a slower rate than existing and should potentially be an improvement.

Representations in objection were received from the following people;

Jonathan Dyson, a local resident, expressed concerns regarding the overdevelopment of the site, the high density of properties in the Conservation Area and neighbouring properties suffering from surface water drainage problems.

Tracey Lyon, a local resident, stated that the application would have a detrimental on light and views from neighbouring properties, particularly on the summerhouse for 16 York Road. She reported that the summerhouse would be very close to the property’s proposed garage.

Representations in support of the application were received from Mark Newby, the agent for the applicant. He felt that the application satisfied Planning policy, was not harmful to the appearance of the Conservation Area, that there had been no objections on Highways grounds and that the drainage details were deemed to be suitable by Officers.

John Chapman from Strensall Parish Council felt that some of the gardens in the vicinity of the proposed building had eroded the character of the area, and had reduced the openness between dwellings.

Councillor Doughty, the Ward Member, also felt that the property would detract from openness and would lead to a feeling of cramming properties into a small area. He added that the National Planning Policy Framework excluded gardens as previously developed land. He felt that the access to the property was dangerous due to blind corners. He added that if Members approved the application that conditions relating to flood management be added to permission.

Discussion took place in which some Members felt that the development would impose and dominate neighbouring buildings, and felt that it should be refused. Others felt that the development was not overdevelopment and that traffic issues should not considered. They added that they did not understand why residents amenity would be detrimentally affected when the current residents had not previously used the space, but that the size of building was too large.

RESOLVED:       That the application be refused.

REASON: (i)       It is considered that the proposed development, by virtue of its siting, design, size and massing would harm the character and appearance of Strensall Conservation Area. The site is underdeveloped and provides an open character and sense of space around the existing dwellings which is considered the key characteristic of this part of Strensall Conservation Area. The proposed dwelling would erode this sense of space, particularly from views along West End, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Therefore, the application is considered to be contrary to Chapters 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Development Control Local Plan Policies GP1 ‘Design’ parts a), b) and c), GP10 ‘Subdivision of Gardens and Infill Development’, H4a ‘Housing Windfalls’ part c) and HE2 ‘Development in Historic Locations’.

           (ii)              It is considered that the proposed development, by virtue of its siting, design, size and massing would harm the amenity of occupants of the adjacent residential dwellings. The size of the proposed dwelling and its close relationship with neighbouring dwellings would result in a development which appears dominant and overbearing when viewed from neighbouring houses and gardens and would result in a loss of outlook to the detriment of the amenity of local residents. Therefore, the application is considered to be contrary to the Core Principles (bullet point 4 of paragraph 17) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Development Control Local Plan Policy GP1 ‘Design’ part i)           

RESOLVED:       That the application be refused.