Agenda item

Erection of detached dwelling and garage with room in roof to rear. [Derwent] [Site Visit]

Members considered an outline application by Ms Anna Craven for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage with room in roof to rear.

In their update to Members Officers reported that the published map of the site was incorrect and that the application site would included the house at 25 Garden Flats Lane.

In response to questions from Members, Officers confirmed that;

·        The Conservation Area started further to the south and across the road from the site.

·        Drainage wise they felt that the development would comply with current established standards.

·        That in reference to a previous application on the site, the Planning Inspector had refused the appeal on the grounds of the impact on the neighbours of the proposed driveway and because of the impact of the proposal on the character of the area.

Representations in objection were received from Mr Preece, an adjacent neighbour to the application site. His comments to the Committee included;

·        The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that Local Authorities should resist developments in gardens.

·        Dunnington’s Village Design Statement (VDS) also stated that larger garden plots in the village should be protected.

·        That the development would be visually prominent.

·        That associated noise from vehicles using the driveway, which was close to the boundary of the site would affect the tranquil environment.

Some Members asked the speaker if previous applications had been submitted from adjacent properties. The speaker informed the Committee that an application from 23 Garden Flats Lane had included a development in their back garden. He reported that this application had been refused and that the Secretary of State had upheld this decision.

Officers clarified to Members that the NPPF did not say that Local Authorities should resist granting planning permission for development in gardens but that local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example  where development would  cause  harm to the local area. Policy GP10 was considered to be in line with the NPPF.

Representations in support of the application were received from Jenny Hubbard, a planning consultant. She commented that;

·        That the application was a sustainable development.

·        That the site was large but the visual impact on neighbouring properties would be reduced through boundary treatment.

In relation to if the application would conflict with the VDS, the planning consultant responded that there would not be a material impact on the adjacent property, the density of the site. She added that the development of different styles of buildings in the village was encouraged in the Statement.

Representations in objection were received from Stuart Kay, the Vice Chairman of Dunnington Parish Council. He explained his reasons for objection. These were;

·        He felt the context of the part of the village, that the property would be located in, had not been considered by the applicant. In his view, the new building would be out of keeping with the existing buildings.

·        He felt the VDS had not been taken into account.

·        He felt that the loss of amenity to the adjacent property had not been considered.

·        That the current infrastructure of the village, and that flooding occurred had not been considered.

When asked to expand on why he felt the application conflicted with the VDS, Mr Kay felt that it was uncertain what materials would be used for the building and wanted to protect trees.

Discussion between Members took place. Some Members felt that the VDS should not be disregarded when making a decision on the application. In addition, they felt that there were practical concerns of inserting driveways in at a different level and there was a need for an acoustic barrier. Furthermore, some felt that there had not been significant changes to a previous application on the site.

Other Members felt that the property’s garden was larger in comparison to other properties in the village and so the development would be acceptable in the space.

Councillor Warters moved and Councillor Douglas seconded a motion to refuse the application. On being put to the vote this motion fell.

Councillor Hyman moved and Councillor Galvin seconded a motion to approve the application. On being put the vote this motion was carried.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement.

Reason:     Members felt that the benefit of the development outweighed any adverse impact, it was in a sustainable location with good access to local services and public transport and that it would be in keeping with the residential area and would not be prominent from any public viewpoint. The proposal would also not be detrimental to the character of the local environment and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and on balance accords with the National Planning Policy Framework and policy GP10 of the 2005 Local Plan.