Agenda item

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

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

Officers had no update to the committee report but advised that there was an error at paragraph 4.9 as the house number referred to should be 16 not 12.

Tracey Lyons had registered to speak in objection to the application on behalf of Mr. Dyson, a neighbour. She advised that Mr. Dyson’s main concerns were that the new proposed development was still too large despite an amendment, the scheme was an over development and was too large for the site and the site area was mainly green and this would be spoiled.

Tracey Lyons had registered to speak in objection. She advised that she lived at number 4 and that nearly every neighbour in the street objected to the application. The amendment to the scheme had not changed the footprint and it would be detrimental to other residents in the vicinity as well as the Strensall Conservation Area. She urged Members to refuse the application.

John Chapman had registered to speak on behalf of Strensall Parish Council. He supported the comments made by Ms. Lyons and raised concerns about the impact of the development upon the Strensall Conservation Area. He stated that the area does have historic significance and was worthy of protection. He stated that he agreed with refusal of the first application and considered refusal to be applicable to this application.

Councillor Paul Doughty had registered to speak as Strensall Ward Councillor. He asked Members to read through the reasons for refusal of the previous application before considering the new application. He reminded Members that 11 residents had made objections and the amendment to the scheme were far too modest.

Mark Newby had registered to speak as the applicants agent. He advised that Planning Officers had recommended approval following the amendments that had been made to the scheme and that it complied with planning policy.

Members questioned the potential impact of the scheme upon the conservation area. Officers confirmed that they considered  the revised plans had overcome the previous reason for refusal as the development would now be less visible within the surrounding area. Some Members felt that there would still be an impact and did not consider the application appropriate in a Conservation Area.

Members commented that although they accepted the application had been amended and massing had been slightly reduced, they judged that the proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbours.

Following further discussion it was:

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reasons:   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 undeveloped and

provides an open character and sense of space around 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'.

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)